Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank: Assistance

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are now their priorities for humanitarian and development assistance, both bilateral and multilateral, for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the UK's priority is to continue support for building a Palestinian nation based on economic and social development that benefits the poor. We are providing humanitarian assistance through the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In this extremely difficult situation we must be careful not to support terrorist action either directly or indirectly. Nevertheless, does my noble friend agree that any lasting strategic solution in the Middle East will be based upon justice? Justice has the dimension not only of human rights but also of economic and social opportunity. Therefore, if we are serious about a lasting solution we cannot give too much priority to economic and social support for the Palestinian people.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we must look for a lasting peace in the region. The United Kingdom Government are committed to that. We are indeed committed to ensuring that that peace is based on justice, human rights, and economic and social development. We believe that they go hand in hand.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I realise that no development initiatives will have success while there is no ceasefire, but will the Minister say what efforts are being made to bring forward the peace process? Did President Arafat's visit have any positive outcome?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are committed to working towards a lasting peace. In doing so, we are working with our EU partners and the US government, as well as having discussions with those in the region. As the noble Lord said, the Prime Minister recently met with Chairman Arafat. It was agreed that, if possible, the UK would give additional support to the process. It was a positive meeting. A meeting was also held recently in the United States. I do not yet have details of the outcome of that meeting.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the Minister has already touched on this point. Is not one of the best ways to ensure the resolution of the security concerns of the state of Israel to address the economic disparity between the Israelis and the Palestinians? What specific measures are the Government undertaking to resolve that?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, in our work for the Palestinian poor, we are focusing on a range of issues including health and education. The noble Viscount is right: there is an economic disparity between Palestine and Israel. Clearly, we want to address that through our development assistance programme. We shall continue to make that long-term commitment.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, although I fully support the plea of my noble friend Lord Judd for maximum help to legitimate charities and causes of the Palestinian authority, can the Minister be sure that the money and resources provided are used properly? Is that supervised? In particular, are the allegations correct that when schools funded at least partially by us were closed for security reasons, the children went from those schools to be trained in riot tactics--many of them to be in the front line of the riots?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there was an allegation about these matters in the News of the World on, I think, 5th November. There is no substance in those allegations. There has been no misuse of funds provided by the British Government. The Palestinian authority closed all its schools, colleges and universities from 29th September until 7th October for security reasons. Schools operated by the United Nations Relief Works Agency were closed for the same period. I understand that some establishments remain closed but for operational reasons.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government feel a certain concern about the history of these events, in that the Jewish state welcomed millions of immigrants from Morocco, Iraq and Egypt? One can see the synagogue in Alexandria which is now empty whereas the Arab states kept them as a running sore. Have the Government given thought to that matter?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is somewhat wide of the Question that we are debating. However, it is important that we look forward. In seeking to bring about a long-term peace in the region, it is important that we do not speak in intemperate terms but try to work together as much as possible for a lasting peace.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, does the Minister believe that development assistance is feasible as long as the violence continues? Is my noble friend aware that the very industrial zones set up to provide economic growth and development have been attacked? Surely those acts will put off inward investment.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have continued to provide development assistance to Palestine and West Gaza principally for health and education projects. However, given some of the recent troubles, we have also had to provide humanitarian assistance to the region. The economic impact on the region of the recent crises reinforces the importance of supporting the current peace process.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, one problem in areas of conflict throughout the world is the tragic effect on the mental health of many of the inhabitants; USAID and other charities recognise the long-term seriousness and importance of that. How far has the Department for International Development progressed with the requested support for the Gaza community mental health programme?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I have said before, we have supported a number of health and education projects. I shall write to the noble Baroness about her specific question on mental health assistance and I shall put a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

NHS Dental Strategy

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What additional resources they are devoting to the implementation of their dental strategy

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the dental strategy commits up to £100 million to improving NHS dental services, as outlined in the strategy.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The intention of providing access to NHS dentists for all by September 2001 is clearly laudable, but will not the bulk of that £100 million come from savings to be made in the existing system? Do we not need another 1,800 dentists before there is even a chance of achieving that objective?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, general dental services expenditure has risen in real terms since 1996-97. A lot of the £100 million will be used specifically to improve access for NHS patients. As the noble Lord has suggested, we are determined to ensure that we meet the access pledge by September next year. There are now 17,700 dentists working in the GDS, which is 2,200 up on the 1992 figure and 1,300 up on the 1997 figure.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, what provision is there for emergency dental treatment on a Sunday in the NHS? On Sunday a week ago, a friend of mine was sent by her doctor to the Acorn dental surgery in Slough for the extraction of one tooth. The surgery said that it would not do it unless she paid £267 in cash. Another friend of mine ended up paying with five cheques, because that was all that the surgery would accept. What does the new dental strategy do for emergency cases?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that we shall do a lot better than that. We recognise that the current availability of emergency dental services is patchy throughout the country. Members of the public have sometimes found it difficult to obtain information about where to go for emergency treatment. One of our key aims is to ensure that health authorities enable the public to have access to effective emergency dental services. We shall ensure that NHS Direct has the information for that by next year. We also want to ensure that any charges made are reasonable.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that fluoridation is the most exhaustively tested public health measure that the world has ever known? What additional resources will be devoted to it as part of the strategy?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, fluoridation is one of the elements of an effective oral health strategy. We have made it clear in our strategy that we expect health authorities to be proactive in combating issues of access and dental disease. Your Lordships may be aware that a report from York University commissioned by the Government concluded in October that fluoridation helps to reduce tooth decay. It also found no evidence to support the concerns that had been expressed about the health effects. We have told health authorities, particularly those with a high incidence of dental disease, that we expect them to consider fluoridation as one way of tackling those problems.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, following on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about savings already made, how much of the £100 million is new money rather than resources that have already been announced?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is all new money in the sense that the bulk of it is going into dentists' pockets. The £100 million includes £35 million of new money to help modernise equipment and premises, £4 million of new money for a dental care development fund and £20 million of new money for PDS pilots, including dental access. We had already announced that we accepted in principle the recommendation of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration on dentists' commitments, but we did not give details until the strategy announcement. The £100 million includes £28 million for that. In the end, this money will go to dentists and will improve access. It is in addition to money that was announced previously as being available.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in view of the fact that a large notice appears in today's newspapers stating that if a person fraudulently claims free treatment under the National Health Service he will be prosecuted, will the Minister tell me whether the forms have been simplified? It used to be possible simply to sign a form if one was claiming, for example, housing benefit. However, if one needed help for one-off dental treatment, one had to complete multiple pages covering prison visits and so on. Has the form been simplified, making it clearer to dentists and patients how claims are to be made?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are examining the forms. Examples of new forms that we should like to develop are to be found in the dental strategy. In particular, they show when patients receive NHS and private treatment. In addition, where large-scale treatment is to take place, they encourage dentists to set out the estimated cost. We are very keen to ensure that patients receive as much information as possible. Equally, the launch of "Combating Fraud in Dentistry" is designed to ensure that only people who are eligible for discounts on their treatment receive it.

Wales: Japanese Investment

Lord Taverne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the prospects for Japanese-owned firms in Wales.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since devolution, attracting and retaining inward investment in Wales has been the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales. The Welsh Development Agency works in partnership with other members of Team Wales and with Invest UK. Through Invest UK, the UK Government are responsible for promoting the whole of the UK as a location for inward investment. We regret recent announcements of job losses at Sony and Panasonic. However, we recognise that, where companies operate on a global scale in such a competitive sector, they must reassess and restructure their operations. This Government will continue to maintain the long-term economic stability which Britain enjoys today and which, in turn, will allow businesses to invest and plan ahead with confidence.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, given the assurances from Japanese companies, it would be wrong to panic in the face of those job losses. However, will the Government recognise that they should take seriously the warnings by leaders of Japanese business, and, indeed, business leaders elsewhere, about the longer-term consequences of our staying outside the eurozone? Although such developments take time, will the Minister recognise that continuing to stay outside the zone is likely to have an adverse effect on foreign investment and, indeed, on jobs in Wales and in the rest of Britain?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is of course right to say that we should not panic. There is no reason to panic. We continue to do well in attracting investment from Japan and from other countries. Indeed, of the total investment from Japan in the whole of Europe, 46 per cent comes to this country. I have read what some Japanese business leaders have said. However, JETRO, the Japanese External Trade Research Organisation, carried out a survey in April this year of the views of Japanese firms in Britain. Those firms did not have anything like the same fears about our present policies with regard to the euro as those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.

Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is always a tendency for firms to drift towards areas where labour is cheap? That is certainly the case at present in Czechoslovakia and Poland. However, is it not rather interesting that Toyota in Flint in North Wales is about to recruit another 300 workers for its engine plant?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Islwyn is right. In policy terms, it is important that we continue to encourage investment at a high level of skill and to encourage investment in research and development activities. We are particularly good at that and it will counteract any tendency for lower-cost activities to go to lower-cost countries.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that all multi-national companies have in common a total determination to obtain ever-increasing sums of money from host governments? Does he also agree that the threat to leave a country is taken seriously only by the naive?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course multi-national companies will try it on when they can. However, effective policies are in place across the United Kingdom to ensure that competitive bidding for more and more public subsidy does not occur within the United Kingdom. In the end, the European Commission has a part to play in that.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it not true that, measured by earnings, less than 1 per cent of our inward investment comes from Japan, whereas 66 per cent comes from the United States of America? Is it not also true that the pound is now standing at an eight-year low against the dollar and that 60 per cent of our foreign trade is dollar related? Does that not put a new perspective on the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, given that the noble Lord's Question is about Japanese investment in Wales rather than about the United States, I do not have the figures with which to challenge those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. They sound implausible. However, if they are correct, I shall write to him about it.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, as we are talking about Wales, is not the recent news that the Government have obtained Objective 1 status for Wales of great importance to the valleys and, indeed, the people of Wales?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brookman is not only right, he is too modest. Not only have we obtained Objective 1 status for west Wales and the valleys, but in the 2000 spending review the Government also announced that they will provide full funding for that purpose.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the low euro is not the only factor taken into account by Japanese companies in deciding the future location of their production facilities? High fuel costs and higher taxes in the United Kingdom have been referred to by Sony as detracting from their competitiveness. Therefore, will the noble Lord urge the Chancellor to act in those areas to boost the competitiveness of British-based companies and to help to maintain the prosperity on which his strategy depends?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I made it clear in an earlier answer that I agree that the weakness of the euro is not the only reason for difficulties arising for inward investors in this country vis-a-vis Europe. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, talks about taxation levels, I hope that he will recognise that, as has become clear, our levels of corporate taxation are among the lowest in G7 countries.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I declare an interest as President of BREMA, the electronic manufacturers' association, of which both Panasonic and Sony are members. Is the Minister aware that those companies paid tribute to the high quality of both the Welsh workforce and the research and development (to which the Minister referred) in the television industry in particular in Wales? Therefore, does he agree that there is ample opportunity for joined-up government in a vigorous campaign for an early switch-over to digital technology, which would provide a market for high value-added electrical goods built in Wales?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in this matter. He will know that Sony and Panasonic are members of the Welsh Electronic Forum Task Force--rather a lot of trendy words in one title!--and that they agree with him and with the Government that the more advanced television technology, particularly plasma and projection technology, are enormously important and are best carried out by the highly skilled workforce which we have in Wales. I believe that it is doubtful that the changeover to digital technology could be made to contribute more to that because such a changeover might move the electronics industry to more low-cost manufacturing.

Millennium Dome: National Audit Office Report

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will make a report to the House today on the National Audit Office report on the Millennium Dome.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I welcome the publication of the National Audit Office report which gives a detailed account of events at the Dome. The NAO's report will be the subject of a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on Wednesday, 15th November, where oral evidence will be taken from the accounting officers.
	It is a convention, known as the Osmotherley Rules, that the Government should not pre-empt or prejudice their final and considered reply to the committee's recommendations, albeit the convention recognises the right of Ministers to respond robustly to media attacks.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have said previously, I should welcome the opportunity for a full debate, which should include the background and inception of the Millennium Dome, in this House as soon as parliamentary time can be found for it.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that his remark on the television last Thursday that the fact the Dome was a failure was in no way an indictment of the way it had been run will surely earn him immortality in the Oxford Dictionary of Political Quotations?
	But does the NAO report not show, first, that accounting officers did not want to put more money in; that as early as February Chris Smith was asking for a shake-up of corporate governance; as early as February the Dome was trading insolvently; and yet after February a further £179 million was put into the project? If that is not an indictment of the way it was run, what is?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is not for me to draw conclusions from the NAO's report. However, I will say that the NAO report makes it clear that as the year went on, the options were either continuing to trade or closure. Continuing to trade was the cheaper of the two options so it was the sensible, albeit difficult, course to take.
	The NAO report also identified specifically the number of visitors to the Dome, which is more than to any other pay-to-visit attraction in the country, the degrees of visitor satisfaction and the importance of regeneration.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I suppose that I should declare an interest as a past chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. While the National Audit Office report is very good and well worth considering, does my noble and learned friend agree that it would be better for any debate to take place--and I see my noble friend the Chief Whip nodding--after we have the report from the Public Accounts Committee? We should then be better informed by a non party-political report rather than merely having the present personally offensive and party-political attacks on my noble and learned friend.
	Many Ministers from past and present governments have been involved in the project. Indeed, many leading businessmen, with leisure industry interests, have been involved as well as senior civil servants. So the Public Accounts Committee will have the opportunity of questioning officials. I hope and believe that the report will be unanimous and non-party-political, as it always has been in the past. It would be a good time to debate the matter after the publication of that report.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend accurately sets out the principle which has informed the approach of this Government and previous governments to NAO reports. It is a matter to be dealt with on a non-partisan basis. It should be debated properly in this House after the Public Accounts Committee has expressed its view. That is the approach that this Government have taken to the NAO report, albeit that from time to time I have felt obliged to respond to attacks on me.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, first, I thank the noble and learned Lord for the fact that after the question which I raised last week, a breathless messenger arrived in the House a few moments ago with a belated reply to my letter of 14th September. I am grateful for that.
	In view of the fact that the Government have been deeply involved in all the decisions on the Dome since its major review two-and-a-half years before the Dome opened and the fact that the shareholder has attended 16 of the 22 board meetings and had a representative at the others, is there not an overwhelming case for Parliament and this House discussing the deplorable state of affairs revealed in the NAO report before Prorogation?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have indicated in my original Answer, I support the idea of a debate dealing with the issues. The usual channels will seek to fix a date as soon as possible. But the reason for the convention is that one should debate the NAO report only when the views of the PAC are available.

Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may revert to what happened on Thursday afternoon. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that some of us were very puzzled that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, decided to raise an issue on the Floor of the House without giving any advance warning that he proposed to do so? Is he further aware that when the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was Leader of this House, he would have objected very strongly to anybody doing exactly the same?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the position in relation to what would have been the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I know that the Companion suggests that if such an issue is to be raised, notice should be given to the Leader of the House. I understand that no such notice was given. The Leader of the House was attending a longstanding engagement arranged previously with a well-respected Member of the Opposition Front Bench. That was why she was not present. Had notice been given, then, of course, she would have been there.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree with the following assessments from the NAO report that:
	"Once the Dome had been constructed, and much of the project cost already incurred, the room for manoeuvre in the face of low visitor numbers was very restricted",
	and secondly that,
	"closing the Dome and liquidating the Company ... would not have made financial sense during the year of operation"?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, those are accurate quotes from the NAO report. As I indicated, it is not for me at this stage to draw any conclusions from what the report said.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the fourth report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 113) be agreed to.--(The Chairman of Committees.)
	Following is the report referred to:
	1. Hereditary Peers: by-elections
	Standing Order 10 which was agreed to in July 1999 provides that after the end of an "initial period" by-elections will be held to fill any vacancies occurring by death among the 90 elected hereditary Peers excepted from the provisions of the House of Lords Act 1999. Standing Order 10(5) requires the Clerk of the Parliaments to maintain and publish a register of hereditary Peers (other than Peers of Ireland) who wish to stand in any by-election. The Committee recommends that a procedure should be devised to ensure that the register is accurate and that those who are included in it have the right to be registered. The Committee does not believe that hereditary Peers who were Members of the House before the enactment of the 1999 Act need take any steps to establish their right to be included in the register. But the successors of such hereditary Peers should be required to do so.
	Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the House adopt the following new Standing Order:
	Register of hereditary Peers
	Any hereditary Peer, not previously in receipt of a writ of summons, who wishes to be included in the register maintained by the Clerk of the Parliaments pursuant to Standing Order 10(5) shall petition the House and any such petition shall be referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report upon whether such Peer has established his right to be included in the register.
	2. Tax simplification Bills
	Tax simplification Bills are a new form of legislation proposed by the Tax Law Rewrite Project. They are intended to make the language of tax law simpler, but they preserve the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable. Such Bills will normally be introduced into the House of Commons, and it is expected that the Speaker will certify them as money Bills. It is proposed that a Joint Committee of the two Houses should consider the Bills after Second Reading in the Commons and that the Joint Committee's report should be laid before both Houses.
	Given the subject matter of tax simplification Bills, the Committee recommends that when the House deals with such Bills:
	--procedure in the Joint Committee should follow the procedure of Select Committees of the Commons when such procedure differs from that of Select Committees in the Lords, and the chairman of the Joint Committee should have power to select amendments to the Bill;
	--the Committee stage of a tax simplification Bill, being a money Bill, should normally be negatived.
	It is intended that the first tax simplification Bill should he introduced early next Session. The Committee therefore recommends that the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills should have the following orders of reference:
	Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills
	(1) That a Select Committee he appointed to join with a committee appointed by the Commons as the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills to consider tax simplification Bills, and in particular to consider whether each Bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable;
	(2) That the quorum of the committee shall be two;
	(3) That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
	(4) That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	(5) That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee shall, if the committee think fit, be printed and delivered out; and
	(6) That the procedure of the Joint Committee shall follow the procedure of Select Committees of the House of Commons when such procedure differs from that of Select Committees of this House, and shall include the power of the chairman to select amendments.
	3. Northern Ireland Assembly legislation
	The Northern Ireland Assembly legislates on transferred or devolved matters, and the United Kingdom Parliament has no part to play in the enactment of such legislation. However, certain matters such as policing and criminal justice, taxation and international relations, are excepted or reserved for legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament. The Northern Ireland Assembly can legislate on excepted and reserved matters with the consent of the Secretary of State.
	In such circumstances, which may be very rare, Section 15 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides that the Secretary of State may not submit for Royal Assent a Bill of the Northern Ireland Assembly touching on an excepted or reserved matter unless he has laid the Bill before the United Kingdom Parliament. In an urgent case, the Secretary of State may submit the Bill for immediate Royal Assent; but he must then lay the Act before both Houses at Westminster. Either way, when such a Bill or Act has been laid at Westminster, each House has 20 sitting days within which a Motion to oppose the Bill or Act may be tabled.
	Under the Act, any such Motion must be signed by at least 20 Members of the House. This is contrary to the present rules of the House which provide that "Motions are tabled on the Order Paper in the name of one Member only. It is not the practice to add names of other Members in support of a Motion" (Companion, paragraph 4.115). In view of the statutory requirement for at least 20 names to appear on Motions opposing Northern Ireland Assembly Bills and Acts, the Committee recommends that the House's usual practice should not apply to such Motions. This departure from present practice would be strictly limited to Motions on Northern Ireland Assembly legislation touching on excepted or reserved matters.
	The Committee recommends the following mechanism for handling these Motions:
	--when a Northern Ireland Assembly Bill or Act is laid before the House, its arrival will be recorded in the Minutes, and in a new table analogous to Bills in Progress. This table will show the expiry date of the 20-day statutory period. If 20 sitting days pass and no Motion is put down the table will disappear and the House's involvement will be at an end.
	--if within the 20 days a Member of the House tables a Motion to oppose the Bill or Act, the Motion will be printed in No Day Named, under the following rubric:

NO DAY NAMED

PART IV

MOTIONS CONCERNING NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY

LEGISLATION ON EXCEPTED/RESERVED MATTERS

[Signatures may be added in the Minute Room or the Public Bill Office. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a Motion requires 20 signatures within 20 sitting days of the laying of the Bill/Act.]
	--signatories to the Motion will, exceptionally, be listed in No Day Named. If further Members of the House add their names, they will be added to the list. Once 20 have signed, the list will be replaced with a total number.
	The following rules should apply:
	--A signature will be required, either on a copy of the Motion, or on a note clearly indicating the Lord's wish to be associated with the Motion. Fax, e-mail and phone will not be acceptable.
	--The master copy of the Motion, with a consolidated list of signatures, will be kept in the Minute Room, and will be open for inspection without restriction.
	--A Lord may withdraw his signature at any time, by giving written authority.
	If, on the 20th day, the number of signatories has not reached 20, the Motion will be ineffective. If it has reached 20, the Motion may be put down for a day and debated in the usual way. When the Motion is put down for a day, only the name of the person who originally tabled the Motion will appear on the Order Paper as the person who is to move the Motion. The total number of signatures which the Motion has attracted will be indicated.

APPENDIX

Extract from the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee

Thursday business
	The Committee deliberated on a memorandum by the Government Chief Whip proposing changes to the times of sitting on Thursday. After debate, it was moved by the Lord Carter that the Committee should recommend to the House that on Thursday business should start at 11.30 a.m. and conclude not later than 7.30 p.m; which being objected to, the Question was put thereupon and the Committee divided:
	CONTENT 9
	NOT-CONTENT 14
	CONTENTS
	L. Burlison
	L. Carter
	L. Clarke of Hampstead
	B. Gould of Potternewton
	L. Irvine of Lairg (L. Chancellor)
	B. Jay of Paddington (L. Privy Seal)
	B. Lockwood
	L. Shepherd
	L. Strabolgi
	NOT-CONTENTS
	V. Allenby of Megiddo
	B. Anelay of St Johns
	V. Bledisloe
	L. Craig of Radley
	L. Denham
	E. Ferrers
	L. Harris of Greenwich
	L. Henley
	L. Kimball
	L. Mackay of Ardbrecknish
	L. Mancroft
	L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank
	L. Skelmersdale
	L. Strathclyde
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill

Read a third time.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(Baroness Hayman.)

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder whether I may crave the indulgence of your Lordships to speak on this Motion. The Bill had a fairly good run in Grand Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was enormously kind and exceedingly helpful. Perhaps I may say that she conducted herself in a delightful fashion.
	However, I felt that I must say a few words on this Motion because not many people know about the Bill or what it is concerned with. The Bill puts 13 people out of business. It criminalises an activity which has previously been perfectly legal on the basis that mink farming is immoral.
	We all have ideas as to what we like and do not like. Some people do not like eating meat and they become vegetarians. Some people do not like the way that chickens or pigs are kept. Some people may not like the way that mink are kept. But that has nothing to do with morality. I am astonished that that should be the basis upon which the Government have brought forward this Bill.
	Apparently, it is morally acceptable to wear a sheepskin jacket but it is not morally acceptable to wear a mink jacket. It is morally acceptable to wear the hide of an animal on your feet but not on your back. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, the morality argument is deeply spurious.
	The simple matter is that if the Government had not produced an argument of that nature, they would have fallen foul of European Union legislation. The noble Baroness and other Members of the Government have said that the mink farmers welcome this measure because of the compensation. Of course they welcome the compensation. But as they are being put out of business, that is the least that could be expected. The compensation is the result of the Government's policy; it should not be the motivator of it.
	When agriculture is going through an unprecedented time of disaster and depression, when one farmer a week is committing suicide, farmers are told to diversify. But curiously, when they diversify in this direction they are told, "You must not do it. What is more, if you have done it, henceforth keeping mink will be a criminal offence for which the fine is £20,000".
	I hesitate to muddy the waters, but I cannot help but recall the fact that the International Fund for Animal Welfare gave £1 million to the Labour Party and this is the pay-back.
	Fur farming is carried on all over the world--in Canada, Russia, Denmark, Holland, and the United States of America. Are all those people immoral? Of course not. I reckon that that is a farcical argument. The majority of the world's mink is farmed in Denmark, Holland and the United States. As a proportion of the total, few mink are farmed in the United Kingdom.
	The ban will have hardly any effect on the numbers produced, but the majority of all trade in fur takes place through London at a value of £400 million. Banning the farming of mink will have little effect on the fur trade but it will give huge encouragement to animal rights activists.
	The European Union Secretary-General said that the United Kingdom should wait for the proposed European Union legislation on fur farming before taking any unilateral action. That follows opposition to the Government's proposals from France, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Spain and Greece. However, the Government did not take any notice and they produced this Bill.
	I am bound to tell your Lordships that the Bill has a nasty provenance. Unilaterally it destroys people's businesses and it tries to pretend that it will all be done on the altar of morality. I do not believe that the Government should feel at all proud of this Bill. The Government should be in the business of protecting people's businesses, not destroying them and turning them into criminal activities.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, must regret the day she became involved with this Bill. Some noble Lords have not made it easy for her to get this Bill through the House. As I said earlier, she was enormously courteous in Grand Committee, as she has been throughout all the stages of this Bill. However, I did not feel it possible to let this Bill pass on to the statute book without noble Lords realising what an unpleasant Bill it is and what a nasty provenance it has.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the banning of mink farming in this country. I address my remarks to the arguments put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He argues that the morality argument does not exist. He draws the comparison between mink and meat and chickens and he talks about leather from the hides of cows on one's feet and sheepskin on one's back.

Baroness David: My Lords, is it in order to have such speeches on Bill do now pass?

Lord Carter: My Lords, the Companion clearly states that, if no amendments have been tabled for Third Reading,
	"The motion is usually moved formally. It may be opposed, and reasoned or delaying amendments may be moved to it, but ... it is not normally debated".
	It is the practice of the House not to have Second Reading speeches on Bill do now pass.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, thank you. In that case I shall pose a question to the Minister. Is not the morality of the matter in the purpose of the breeding? Whereas cows and sheep are bred for the purpose of food, mink are not bred for the purpose of food but simply for cosmetic use. That is where the morality point arises.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I do not want to make a Second Reading speech, having already made one in the summer. This is a sad occasion and a highly significant one. Any moment now this country will find itself totally out of step with the rest of the civilised world. No other country bans fur farming, although two or three Austrian provinces do so.
	The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has commended the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on her courtesy and helpfulness, which I would wholeheartedly endorse. However, this is a highly illiberal Bill, shot through with double standards. The Government, in the person of the noble Baroness, have been honest enough to admit that it has nothing to do with animal welfare or preventing animal cruelty, but it is purely about the killing of animals however well they may be treated. Some will ask what all the fuss is about since the English and Welsh farmers have capitulated, battered as they have been by the hard-cop/soft-cop treatment: the soft-cop being the Government with an increased compensation offer made since Committee stage and the hard-cop being the sinister individuals in black Balaclavas who threaten fur farmers--

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Government Chief Whip tell the House whether these speeches are being made on Bill do now pass?

Lord Carter: My Lords, the motion that the Bill should receive a Third Reading is always taken formally. If there are speeches, the only time to make them is on Bill do now pass. It has been the custom of the House not to make such a speech on Bill do now pass.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I do not intend to make a long speech, and certainly not as long as that of the noble Earl. An industry that pays substantial taxes will be ruined and taxpayers will have to pay £1.5 million, a factor that has not been raised in any debate so far. Perhaps the International Fund for Animal Welfare should pay that rather than taxpayers. I am reluctant to take up the time of the House by inviting your Lordships to divide, but I invite noble Lords to express their disapproval of this thoroughly illiberal and dangerous Bill vocally when the Question is put.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, I say categorically to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that there is no relationship whatever between the donation made by the International Fund for Animal Welfare to the Labour Party and this Bill.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches feel strongly that this Bill should now pass. We feel pride that Britain has led the world in improving the standards in which animals are kept, whether pigs or calves kept for veal, and in outlawing fur farming. Surely we should not descend to the lowest common denominator.

Lord Luke: My Lords, today fur is being worn by more people worldwide than ever before and yet we have a Bill to abolish 12 fur farmers' businesses in this country. That is quite extraordinary. My noble friend Earl Ferrers has made all the points that I wanted to make. I reiterate that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has been most courteous and helpful during the course of the Bill. Let it be gone and let us give these unfortunate farmers the adequate compensation that the noble Baroness has said that the Government will pay. On these Benches we shall keep a sharp eye on the progress of negotiations and ensure that those farmers receive their money as soon as possible.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. The fault lines between the Government and those who oppose the principles of the Bill have been examined at some length at Second Reading, in Grand Committee, on Report and again at Third Reading.
	The legislative protection that human beings accord to animals reflects the values of a society at any given time in its development. This Bill reflects this Government's view that it is wrong to rear and to slaughter animals solely or primarily for the value of their fur. We shall not resile from that basic principle.
	As noble Lords who have spoken today have courteously pointed out, we have done everything that we can to accommodate issues of detail around compensation that have been raised during the passage of the Bill. However, the principle remains--it is absolutely correct that we are drawing a distinction between the rearing of animals for slaughter for food and for slaughter for fur. There are no absolute lines in the treatment of animals for most people. We need to look at each case individually and challenge whether the purpose of the activity is sufficient justification for the taking of animal life involved. This is an ethical judgment that goes beyond the welfare considerations and standards which apply to all farmed animals. It is in the nature of such ethical judgments that there will be different views as to where lines are appropriately drawn. I recognise that other Members of your Lordships' House do not agree with the Government or the public sentiment reflected in the many thousands of letters of support received on this issue. That is the nature of democratic politics. I am sure that there were minority voices in the debates on legislation which went through Parliament in 1835 to ban bear-baiting and in 1849 to ban cock-fighting. And I suspect that we will devote many hours of debate to related issues when we discuss the future of fox hunting in your Lordships' House.
	But we are where we are. This Bill has been scrutinised at all stages. Sadly, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was unable to be with us for the debate at Second Reading. However, he managed to give his Second Reading speech both in Committee in the Moses Room and today on the Floor of the House. I do not underestimate the commitment of the noble Earl and other Members to the cause that he argues.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. She is being slightly unfair to say that I managed to get a Second Reading speech into the present debate. The noble Baroness knows perfectly well that in Bill do now pass debates speeches are often made saying how good the Bill is. That is all right. Occasionally, someone will make a speech saying that the Bill is not very good. That is what I was doing. I was not making a Second Reading speech.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that was not a judgment. I am sure each of us will make an individual judgment on that issue. However, I say to the noble Earl, very gently because he was most polite, that he may not be the most reliable barometer of the social and ethical attitudes of Britain in the year 2000.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, he may be. I suggest that he may not be.

Lord Luke: My Lords, the noble Baroness, on reflection, may care to rephrase that sentiment.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I would if I could rephrase it in a way which was not offensive because it was not intended to give offence in any way. The noble Earl said that I was not a barometer of social attitudes. I did not consider that offensive; I considered that to be his view. We will have debates on social attitudes and the attitudes towards minorities later today. I am talking of ethical and social attitudes, the reflection of which in public opinion polls shows clearly that the majority of the public would like to see the banning of fur farming.
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Reduction in age at which certain sexual acts are lawful]:

Baroness Young: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 5, leave out subsections (1) to (4) and insert--
	("(1) In the Sexual Offences Act 1956, in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 16 (indecency between men etc.) of Schedule 2 (punishments etc.), for the word "eighteen" there shall be substituted the word "sixteen".
	(2) In the Sexual Offences Act 1967--
	(a) in subsection (1) of section 1 (amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in private), for the words "a homosexual act" there shall be substituted the words "an act of buggery in private with another man or commission of an act of buggery";
	(b) after subsection (1), there shall be inserted--
	"(1A) Notwithstanding any statutory or common law provision, an act of gross indecency in private with another man or commission of an act of gross indecency shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of sixteen years.";
	(c) in subsection (3), after the words "subsection (1)" insert "or (1A)";
	(d) in place of subsection (6), there shall be substituted--
	"(6) It is hereby declared that where in any proceedings it is charged that--
	(a) an act of buggery with another man or being party to the commission of such an act is an offence the prosecutor shall have the burden of proving that the act was done otherwise than in private or otherwise than with the consent of the parties or that any of the parties had not attained the age of eighteen years;
	(b) an act of gross indecency with another man or being party to the commission of such an act is an offence the prosecutor shall have the burden of proving that the act was done otherwise than in private or otherwise than with the consent of the parties or that any of the parties had not attained the age of sixteen years."; and
	(e) in section 8 (restriction on prosecutions), for the words "against any man" to the end of section there shall be substituted--
	"(a) for the offence of buggery with another man, for attempting to commit an act of buggery, or for aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or commanding its commission where either of those men was at the time if its commission under the age of eighteen;
	(b) for the offence of gross indecency with another man, for attempting to commit an act of gross indecency, or for aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or commanding its commission where either of those men was at the time if its commission under the age of sixteen.".
	(3) In section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (homosexual offences)--
	(a) in subsection (1) for the words "a homosexual act" there shall be substituted "an act of sodomy in private by one male person with another male person or commission of an act of sodomy";
	(b) after subsection (1), there shall be inserted--
	"(1A) Subject to the provisions of this section, an act of gross indecency in private or shameless indecency in private by one male person with another male person or commission of such an act shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of sixteen years.";
	(c) in subsection (3), after the words "subsection (1)" insert "or (1A)";
	(d) in subsections (5) and (8), for the words "a homosexual act" there shall be substituted "an act of sodomy by one male person with another male person";
	(e) after subsection (5), there shall be inserted--
	"(5A) Subject to subsection (3) above, it shall be an offence to commit or to be party to the commission of, or to procure or attempt to procure the commission of an act of gross indecency or shameless indecency by one male person with another male person--
	(a) otherwise than in private;
	(b) without the consent of both parties to the act; or
	(c) with a person under the age of sixteen years."; and
	(f) after subsection (8), there shall be inserted--
	"(8A) It shall be a defence to a charge of committing or to being party to the commission of, or to procuring or attempting to procure the commission of an act of gross indecency or shameless indecency by one male person with another male person under subsection (5A)(c) above that the person so charged being under the age of 24 who had not previously been charged with a like offence, had reasonable cause to believe that the other person was of or over the age of 16 years.".
	(4) In Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in private)--
	(a) in paragraph (1), for the words "a homosexual act in private" there shall be substituted "an act of buggery in private by a man with another man or commission of an act of buggery in private by a man with another man";
	(b) after paragraph (1), there shall be inserted--
	"(1A) Subject to Article 123 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, and notwithstanding any other statutory provision or any rule of law, an act of gross indecency in private with another man or commission of an act of gross indecency with another man shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of 17 years.";
	(c) in paragraph (3), after the words "paragraph (1)" insert "or (1A)"; and
	(d) in paragraph (5), for the words "a homosexual act" to the end there shall be substituted--
	"(a) an act of buggery by a man with another man or being party to the commission of such an act is an offence the prosecutor shall have the burden of proving that the act was done otherwise than in private or otherwise than with the consent of the parties or that any of the parties had not attained the age of 18 years;
	(b) an act of gross indecency with another man or being party to the commission of such an act is an offence the prosecutor shall have the burden of proving that the act was done otherwise than in private or otherwise than with the consent of the parties or that any of the parties had not attained the age of 17 years.".").

Baroness Young: I begin by saying that we would all like to welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to our debates this afternoon in his position on the Front Bench. In saying that, I hope that he will recognise, as those of us who have taken part and will take part in the ensuing debates will recognise, that the issues involved today are infinitely more important, more serious and more long-lasting than those involved in the Dome.
	This is the third time round on this matter. It is a long time since Second Reading on 11th April. However, I begin by saying that my noble friend Lady Blatch, myself and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, were grateful for the opportunity to discuss our amendments on this Bill with the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General last week. I only regret that the Government do not appear to have moved at all.
	Before turning to the detail of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and the consequential amendments, I should like to make two general points. The first is to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I fully understand why he tabled his amendment; he wants to keep the status quo but add further amendments on abuse of trust. I sympathise with that view. But it brings me to my second general point. We would not be in the position in which we find ourselves this afternoon if the Government had not threatened to use the Parliament Acts on this Bill and only recently repeated that threat.
	Amendments Nos. 1 to 16 are a compromise. The reason why I and those who support me tabled them is that, on reading what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, said at Second Reading, it is clear that the principal reason the Government want this measure is on grounds of equality. I point to col. 91 of Hansard, when the noble and learned Lord said,
	"[The Bill] will improve our law and ensure equality before the criminal law for young homosexuals".
	Again, at col. 93, he said that,
	"an unequal age of consent is the mark of an intolerant society".
	I am not sure that that follows, but I shall let it go now.
	The first group of amendments therefore is to show that those of us who oppose this Bill in principle are willing to move to meet the argument about equality. I should like to think that the Government were prepared to consider moving as well.
	Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have the effect of keeping the age for buggery at 18 for both boys and girls. But they allow homosexual acts, other than anal intercourse, to be committed at 16. That therefore gives an equal age both at 18 and at 16. Under the present law the age at which buggery, or anal intercourse, can be committed is 18. It does not matter whether the act involves two men or a man and a woman. It is unlawful when one or both parties is under the age of 18. My amendments retain that position.
	At the same time, the amendments equalise the age of consent for all other heterosexual and homosexual acts at the age of 16; again, an equal age. There are of course some important differences in Scotland and Northern Ireland to which I shall refer in a moment.
	I turn to the detail of my amendment. The 1967 Act uses the term, "homosexual acts", to cover offences of both buggery and gross indecency. Amendment No. 1 uses the two offences which were created under the 1956 Act. The amendment breaks down the term, "homosexual acts", into its two constituent parts. Under new subsections (1) and (2), which deal with England and Wales, buggery is kept at 18 for boys and girls, while other homosexual acts are permitted at 16. The relevant amendments are made to the 1956 and 1967 Acts; subsection (1) relates to penalties; both subsections (1) and (2) relate to other homosexual acts.
	Perhaps I might turn to the position in relation to girls. In 1994, only six years ago, buggery committed on a girl aged over 18 in England and Wales was made legal. My amendments make no change to that position. The law stays as it is. However, when the Government talk of lowering the age of homosexual consent to 16, in reality they are doing much more than that. The reason is that both homosexuals and heterosexuals can commit anal intercourse. But if 1 per cent of men are homosexuals, as a government study showed, clearly they want this Bill. But girls, half the population, are directly affected by it when the minimum age for buggery goes down to 16. One must accept that the Bill is a gay rights measure which will have a profound effect on girls.
	At present buggery and gross indecency are permitted at 18. Under the Bill both ages go down to 16. Under my amendment buggery stays at 18, while gross indecency goes down to 16.
	However, there are two special cases. The first is Northern Ireland. Subsection (4) of Amendment No. 1 makes the same exception as the Bill. In the Province, it is still illegal for a man to commit buggery on a woman. The Bill does not change that position and neither does my amendment. The Bill allows anal intercourse at 17 in Northern Ireland for boys, presumably because the current heterosexual age of consent in the Province is 17. Subsection (4) of my amendment keeps the age of anal intercourse for boys at 18 but permits other homosexual acts at 17.
	As regards Scotland, my amendment addresses the special position of girls. It extends to under-18 girls in Scotland the same protection currently available throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. My amendment raises the age at which anal intercourse can be committed on girls in Scotland from 16, as it effectively is now, to 18. In Scotland, the position for boys is the same as in England and Wales. Subsection (3) of my amendment permits homosexual acts at 16, except for anal intercourse which is kept at 18.
	However, the position is quite different for girls. At present, girls in Scotland have much less protection than boys. In Scotland, it is a criminal offence for a man to commit anal intercourse on a boy aged under 18, but for girls the age is 16. There is no specific offence of sodomy with a girl in Scotland. The Scottish courts have held it to be a breach of the law of "shameless indecency" for a man to commit anal intercourse with a girl, but only where she is under the age of 16. There is therefore an inconsistency in the present law which is corrected by my Amendment No. 2. It creates a new offence for the protection of girls; it simply applies the protection for girls under 18 which already exists throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
	To sum up, in tabling the amendment we are trying to keep the age of buggery for both boys and girls at 18 but to lower it to 16 for all other homosexual acts. That is the compromise. It goes some way to meet the case for equality because it is equal, and I hope that the Government will consider it seriously.
	I turn briefly to the arguments of principle which have been well rehearsed. Our concern in tabling this and the following amendment is to protect children. Sixteen year-olds are children in law. By keeping the age of buggery at 18, we protect young 16 year-olds from the most dangerous of sexual practices; namely, anal sex. Others far better qualified than I will speak on this, but I have received a number of letters from doctors pointing out the great dangers to teenagers of this practice.
	However, leaving aside what doctors may have said, two facts stand out. The first, stated by the blood transfusion service, is that no one--I repeat, no one--who has had anal sex is ever allowed to give blood. That should say something to us all about the dangers of this practice. Durex, the biggest manufacturer of condoms, states:
	"Anal intercourse is a high risk activity because of the potential for infection from STDs, including HIV transmission. Currently, there are no specific standards for the manufacture of condoms for anal sex. Current medical advice is therefore to avoid anal sex".
	If there is one thing which is certain about manufacturers, it is that they will be very careful what they say on their products. They could be sued. I believe that we should accept--and again from an outside organisation--that this is a very dangerous practice which the Bill would allow to 16 year-olds.
	Finally, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is not in his place on the Front Bench, but I wonder whether he will consider the reply he gave to my noble friend Lady Blatch on 6th November about the whole issue. Will he tell us the medical evidence he has for his answers when it is evident that so many eminent doctors and outside organisations disagree?
	Not surprisingly, most people, particularly parents and, above all, parents with sons, do not want the age of consent for buggery lowered to 16. One of the arguments put forward is that somehow young people under the age of 18 will not be able to get help unless the age is lowered to 16. Indeed, the BMA is one organisation arguing that; I believe the BMA to be wrong in law. If, following the Gillick case, a girl under the age of 16 can be given contraceptive advice without parental consent, clearly homosexual men can also be given advice on safer sex. If the BMA was right about the law inhibiting safer sex advice, HIV infections among men should have gone down when the age of homosexual consent was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1994. However, quite the opposite has happened. Those are serious points.
	Finally, I hope that the age of consent will not be lowered. We have seen the notorious video from Avon health authority and its accompanying booklet, which is full of illustrations, containing advice to young people to try out sex with boys or girls and see who they feel most comfortable with. That seems to me the most dreadful piece of advice to be giving to young people under any circumstances. Furthermore, I was astonished to read a report in last week's newspaper of a free trip, a weekend break, organised by the Healthy Gay Life Project and funded by the Birmingham health authority at £1,000. It was designed for people who are either homosexual or confused about their sexuality. It was for those aged between 10 and 18. It was called off, I may say, because of a public outcry!
	Those are not just idle remarks made by me or my colleagues. I would not have gone through what we have gone through on this issue if I were not deeply concerned to protect children. We in this Chamber have a duty to continue to do so and I hope very much that the Committee will support me and my colleagues in these amendments. I beg to move.

The Earl of Longford: I have so much respect for the noble Baroness, who is a Christian champion, that I am inclined to follow her blindly in these matters. I am sorry that she has produced a compromise because I should have liked a straightforward rejection of the idea of reducing the age of consent for homosexualism from 18 to 16. However, one must accept her view that this is the best that can be obtained.
	My views on these matters have not changed and I shall put them briefly. I stated them more than 40 years ago when I was the first person to back the Wolfenden report in this House by introducing a debate. Last Saturday, two days ago, I visited a gentleman in prison who is serving many years for homosexual offences. He had become a Catholic and I was honoured to be his sponsor when he was received into the Church. But my views have not changed and they can be stated briefly in three propositions. First, I regard homosexualism, certainly lifelong homosexualism, as a sad disorder and handicap. It makes it very unlikely that a proper, healthy family life can be attained. Secondly, homosexual leanings are not to be condemned, any more than schizophrenia or a tendency to alcoholism. However, when they are put into practice they are sinful by Christian standards, and I believe by the standards of other Churches, from whom we shall no doubt hear later. I regard them as sinful when carried into practice, but that does not mean to say that they are criminal. Thirdly, on the question of equality, it sounds good to put them on the same footing, but that argument can be over emphasised. One would not say that a woman should be included in the British rugby team every year to make sure that equality is satisfied. I believe that a lot of humbug is spoken about equality, but I am an old-time feminist.
	Why do I say that age should represent a difference for young men and young women? In passing, I do not believe that the age of 16 is good for women anyway, but, assuming an age of 16 for women, there is a great difference between a young girl of 16 and a young boy of 16. If a young girl of 16 is seduced, it may do her a great deal of harm. If a young man of 16 is seduced, he may be turned into a rent boy, possibly ruining him for life. That is why I draw the distinction. I shall vote for the noble Baroness, Lady Young, though I would much rather see something stronger.

Lord Newby: I have not previously participated in debates on this Bill or its predecessor. I was spurred to do so by something that was said by the noble Baroness at Second Reading. She said:
	"It is the job of responsible adults in public life to support responsible parents".--[Official Report, 13/4/99; col. 653.]
	She went on to say that by voting against Second Reading, we shall be supporting good and responsible parents.
	The clear implication of her remarks is that only an irresponsible adult and an irresponsible parent could possibly support this Bill. I disagree with this sentiment and find it deeply offensive. I am in the fortunate position of having two teenage sons, the elder being within 16 months of his 16th birthday. I try my best to be a responsible parent.
	I strongly support the Bill. I do so primarily for reasons of equality, but also because of the signals that the Bill sends out. There remains in our society a considerable ongoing degree of ignorance, confusion and prejudice about homosexuality, not least among young people. In my view, responsible adults in public life should be doing all they can to reduce inequality and prejudice, wherever they occur. That is what this Bill seeks to achieve. The amendments tabled for discussion today may appear nominally to be based on the principle of equality. However, the noble Baroness made it clear at Second Reading that she opposes this Bill in essence because she does not believe that there is a moral equality in heterosexual and homosexual relationships. I reject that view. I therefore urge the Committee to reject all the amendments today.

Baroness Seccombe: I added my name to this amendment because I have had a long-term concern about this subject in general and about one aspect in particular; namely, the consensual buggery of girls. I wish to support my noble friend Lady Young who has proposed this amendment with great clarity and in her characteristic measured manner.
	I believe that this is a very important matter that could have disastrous effects on the lives of young girls aged between 16 and 18. It is not understood by the vast majority of people in this country that girls are involved in any way. In a letter dated 28th June 1999, Barnardos told me that when they signed up to the Government's policy they
	"were not aware that young women would be affected in the way you point out".
	During the passage of the 1994 Bill, Tony Blair said that the issue was not one of age but one of equality. The Prime Minister and the Government failed then, and still fail, to take into account the fact that the bodies of males and females are different. They can never be treated as equal.
	I was very interested to hear the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal eulogising over the Labour Party's publication, Voices. The noble Baroness said:
	"the magazine includes at the back detailed information...on a range of issues and lists addresses to which people may apply for practical advice".--[Official Report, 25/10/00, col. 323.]
	As a result, I thought that I would do as the noble Baroness had suggested. I turned to page 64 of Voices, headed "Allyouneedtoknow". The other side of the page was entitled, "Modernising Government". There I found a website, www.lovelife.org.uk. When I saw the word "lovelife", I imagined that there would be comments on relationships, highlighting the traditional understanding of the word "love"--affection, respect, commitment. That was what I expected. However, when I eventually found my way to the website, I was surprised, and indeed a little shocked, to see what appeared on my screen as advice to 16 year-olds, who I believe deserve a more sensitive and sensible approach.
	I am hesitant to reveal what I saw, and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if it is offensive, but I feel that I should share with your Lordships the type of advice recommended by this New Labour publication for young people of 16. It states:
	"Condoms are available in all sorts of colours, shapes, flavours, textures and sizes. The range and choice can make them fun to use. Condoms can take time and practice. It may seem a bit of a nuisance at first but once condoms have become part of your sex life, you should feel more comfortable with them. Knowing that you are playing safe can make sex more fun".
	Safe? There is not such a product as a safe condom for those who indulge in anal sex. The chance of developing sexually transmitted diseases is multiplied by a factor of nearly 3,000. The publication also states:
	"Whether or not you have sex can be a difficult decision to make. But in the end it is what is right for you that is important, and only you can answer it. Remember, it is your body, your choice and your right to say 'no'. If you decide to have sex, it is best to play it safe and practise safer sex with less worry about getting pregnant or getting sexually transmitted infections".
	Again, the reference to safe sex astounds me.
	Nowhere does the website entry differentiate between vaginal and anal intercourse, except to suggest the use of a stronger condom with plenty of water-based lubricant for anal intercourse. I cannot accept that they are in any way comparable. One is as nature intended, the other is unnatural and dangerous. The latter involves an increasing vulnerability to HIV and other infections and, in addition, carries particular risks of physical damage to the receptive partner. For young girls, the dangers are further increased.
	It greatly saddens me that young people should be encouraged to treat sex in such a casual manner and without thought for the other person involved. It seems to me an extraordinarily selfish attitude; one could almost imagine it to be a one-person activity. Adults can give as much credence to such advice as they wish, but I believe that 16 year-olds should be encouraged to think carefully about natural sexual activity, never mind an unnatural and hazardous one, and not just dash for a condom. As my noble friend Lady Young has said, we should never forget that anyone who has indulged in such a practice is not permitted to give blood. That must surely make us all think carefully before encouraging young people into such a way of life. I know that there are those on other Benches who may think that I am bigoted and out of touch with the vast majority of people, but my only motivation is the protection of the young. I find the inclusion of this website in the Labour publication offensive.
	This is a bad Bill in every way. However, it would be improved by this amendment. Without it, girls could be in jeopardy of being physically and mentally traumatised, unable to make lasting and loving relationships in the future. I remind your Lordships of what the Criminal Law Revision Committee said in 1984:
	"The differing opinions as to whether the age should be 16 or 18 expressed on our Working Paper are taken by these members to demonstrate that this is a sensitive issue, on which the law would do well not to move too far in advance of public feeling".
	My research leads me to believe that it is the new Labour Government who are out of touch and have failed to carry public opinion. It would be an outrage if they chose to "Parliament Act" a Bill of conscience, and I believe that they should, and would, pay the price.

Lord Davies of Coity: When in April of last year I spoke on this issue and opposed the--

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Bach: There is sufficient time for all Members of the Committee to speak. A little decorum in this serious debate will be welcomed.

Lord Alli: I do not believe that the noble Baroness is bigoted. All Members of the Committee respect the honesty and integrity with which the noble Baroness puts her case. I hope that the noble Baroness will treat my remarks in the same way. On 13th April 1999 I stood up in your Lordships' House for the second time. It was much the same as today: the Benches were fairly full, hundreds of eyes looked at me and I was a little nervous. For the first time I spoke publicly of my experience of being gay. I described what it was like to be 16 and to grow up in a country in which my very being was illegal. I also spoke about the fear which built up inside which meant that you hid from those whom you loved and from who you were. I told noble Lords of my beliefs about equality which were not abstract but a reality.
	I am a little less nervous tonight. I want to tell the Committee why I believe that it should support the Bill and reject the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I believe that the argument for change has been won with the public, politicians of all parties in the other place, including the Leader of the Opposition, and charities and professional workers who work with young people. It is only in this House that change is resisted. The arguments against change which we hear again today are not new; they were fully rehearsed in our previous debate. There are Members of the Committee, whose honesty I respect, who are opposed to change in principle and practice.
	Some Members of the Committee may recall the speakers last year. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke about homosexuality as a sin. He then likened it to a sickness from which he believed people could recover. He told us the story of a boy at Eton who indulged in homosexuality and subsequently recovered from it to become a pillar of society. The noble Lord, Lord Seldson, told us that it was a simple issue between good, clean, healthy sex and bad, unclean sex. He also went on to outline his distress at the use of the word "gay" in this particular context as he believed that it should remain a good old-fashioned English girl's name. My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity made an impassioned speech on why, in his view, homosexuality was unnatural. I shall listen with interest to his contribution. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, made an interesting speech on anal sex. Those speeches were made by noble Lords who were utterly opposed to change. They were joined by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who today has tabled detailed amendments, to which I turn next.
	I should welcome recognition by the noble Baroness of the principle of equality. If I understand the noble Baroness correctly, she proposes a common age of consent. Her amendments go on to categorise various sexual acts which require consent at various ages. I understand that she would permit all sexual acts, apart from buggery, at the age of 16 and make the common age of consent 18. The noble Baroness appears to take an inconsistent position. In her speech on 13th April 1999 she said:
	"If you consider, as I do, that it is wrong to lower the age for homosexual consent from 18 to 16, in effect this Bill is unamendable".--[Official Report, 13/4/99; col. 652.]
	Just over a year later, the noble Baroness seeks to amend a previously unamendable Bill.

Baroness Young: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He raises a very important matter of principle. I thought long and carefully about this matter. I made clear today that I would prefer not to have the Bill at all. However, I have been in public life a very long time--longer than the noble Lord, Lord Alli--and have also been a Minister. One is aware that there are occasions when it is right to test whether there is any measure of agreement, because one particularly wants the amendments on trust. I do not want the noble Lord to believe that I or my colleagues have changed our minds on some kind of whim.

Lord Alli: But if change in the age of consent was completely unacceptable a year ago, why is it now acceptable? My own explanation, which the noble Baroness may not like, is that this is a wrecking amendment, plain and simple, and a further attempt by the noble Baroness to win votes and to stop reform. Principle and morality are ditched to get a few extra votes on your Lordships' Benches so that the noble Baroness may carry the day when she has lost the argument. There are men and women on all sides of the Committee who have fought a principled battle.
	I was moved last year by the speeches of the right reverend Prelates, the Bishop of Bath and Wells and the Bishop of Oxford, the noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Freyberg, my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General and many others. Ours is a case of principle, equality, fairness and justice. We do not ask Members of the Committee to approve of homosexuality or homosexual acts, or even to understand why they happen, but to remove the weight and penalty of the criminal law from those young men aged 16 and 17 who consent to have sex with other men. Surely, except for those on the very extreme of this debate, no one believes that we should criminalise 16 and 17 year-olds for having consensual sex.
	Do not be fooled by the arguments of abuse; they are a red herring and are designed to scare. The noble Baroness does not have a monopoly on concern for children. Does she really believe that all those in another place and in this Chamber who support the Bill and the organisations which welcome this reform are of the view that it will lead to the abuse of children? That suggestion is both offensive--

Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord casts an aspersion on my noble friend Lady Young. Does he not realise that we all speak according to our belief and honour?

Lord Alli: That must work both ways. Sexual abuse of any kind to anybody, regardless of age, sex or sexuality, is wrong and offensive, and we have laws in place to prevent it. This Bill further strengthens the law and extends protection to vulnerable young men and women. I understand the concern of the noble Baroness but her generation is different from mine. The noble Baroness's values, experience and aspirations are different. I accept all of that and understand that her motives are well intentioned. I liken them to the concerns of a kindly grandparent. In that spirit, I ask the noble Baroness to let people of my generation live their lives in their own way. This legislation will proceed with or without the consent of the noble Baroness. The time has come to remove discrimination, oppression and fear from the statute book. I ask Members of the Committee to support the Bill and oppose the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness.

Lord Selsdon: The noble Lord, Lord Alli, was kind enough to mention me, but he took some of my previous remarks out of context. As the noble Lord has only recently become a Member of the House, perhaps he will allow me to respond. One's experience based on 38 years in this Chamber is that one must gauge its mood and recognise that, whether elected or not, one has a duty to try to represent the nation as a whole without prejudice. When I spoke I did not say exactly what the noble Lord attributed to me. I said that one aspect of sex was natural and the other unnatural. What may be natural to some may be unnatural to others, but not usually the other way round.
	We have long departed from the kinds of remarks that people might have used, for example that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The insults which were once thrown about have long since disappeared as we reach this particular stage of the Bill.
	I intended to table two amendments until I read the amendments of my noble friend Lady Young. One amendment would have concentrated on the protection of the young, accepting at the moment that someone under 18 is young. It does not mean that they are not intelligent, that they are not well trained or that they cannot fight in a war. But there is a need for protection from the older generation in one form or another.
	I found it extraordinarily difficult actually to use the word "buggery" for the first time in your Lordships' House. Then I thought back to my time in the navy and realised that sometimes it was a friendly phrase--"Well, I'm buggered"--whereas the use of religious words was a criminal offence.
	The decriminalisation of homosexuality has taken place over a long period of time. What consenting adults may do in private is their business. In general, we are a very tolerant society. But the moment we start to threaten the parent--the lioness with her cubs--a whole new mood begins to come out. That was manifest by the enormous number of letters I received. Knowing that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, might well say that I am one of those with a faded parchment name downstairs, wrinkled all over, I thought I would consult in the period of the past six months. I formed a number of private committees, with the youngest member being 10 years old. We discussed the noble grandmother. We talked about family values. We spoke about how out of date we were regarding people's attitudes--the young and one to the other. But everyone had one thing in mind that caused them fear--disease. That was the purpose behind the amendments that I intended to table.
	During my working life I have come across female circumcision and the problems of Africa. I have been to Gabon. I believe I have even eaten the private parts of a green monkey. But I am concerned about the impact of various diseases, some known and some unknown, and the spread of those diseases which in certain cases--HIV--is through anal intercourse. The two quickest ways, so I am advised, of getting things into the body are to sniff them up your nose or to shove them up your rear end.
	In a discussion on drugs I heard someone say, "When you smoke a spliff and you can afford only one, if you shove a plastic tube up your backside it gets into your bloodstream quicker". That made me think of this: in my younger days on the Continent I was given a pill and I tried to swallow it, with considerable difficulty, only to find that it should have gone up the other end because it went into the bloodstream quicker.
	What I am coming to is, in part, the spread of AIDS, but perhaps also other diseases that are not necessarily well known, and how we can protect the younger generation from such possibilities. In general, it will be the transmission of AIDS by older to younger generations that we may have to concern ourselves with.
	My noble friend's amendment gets over my need to introduce an amendment simply to point out that, if two persons were together and one was under 18, and either had AIDS and failed to disclose it, effectively consent would be deemed to be withheld. If the Government are determined to force the Bill through, will they give considerable thought to the impact that this might have on the spread of this devastating and frightening disease? At least one aspect of the disease has made itself manifest; namely, it is not just a homosexual disease but a disease that spreads widely through both sexes and through blood.
	This led to the second amendment that I was proposing to introduce: that it should be illegal to give blood if one has HIV. I was then told that this is not actually necessary because one's finger is pricked before one gives blood and that is thus determined. At the moment if one tries give blood one is asked to sign a form that one does not have HIV. I gather that in certain cases--this sounds an outrageous thing to say--those who suffer in this way are actively seeking to spread the disease. I am not sure whether that is true. But it is these two areas, the question of blood and the transmission of HIV through anal or even vaginal intercourse, that cause me concern. My noble friend's amendment makes those two amendments and my two fears about that no longer necessary.
	Therefore, I end by returning to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, whose speeches I have always enjoyed. When he spoke at Second Reading I think he pointed out in a friendly way that he was the only gay member of your Lordships' House. I questioned that at the time.

Lord Alli: I think I said that I was the only openly gay member, not the only gay member of your Lordships' House.

Lord Selsdon: What I wanted to point out was that in this House we welcome everyone. We welcome their contribution. I have learnt from the noble Lord, Lord Alli. But I support wholeheartedly the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young.

Lord Davies of Coity: I respect the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Alli but I do not share them. When I spoke on this issue in April last year--in opposing the reduction in the age of consent for homosexual relationships--I made it plain that I had no difficulty in supporting the Government's proposals in respect of protecting young people from those in positions of trust. Indeed, they were government provisions which I felt reinforced my concerns and drove me further in my opposition to the reduction of the age of consent from 18 to 16 years.
	Today I still have confidence in the Government's approach to protecting young people exposed to the influences and pressures of those in positions of trust. Nevertheless, this has not made me change my view about reducing the age of consent in respect of anal intercourse.
	But I appreciate we have moved on. The terms of the amendment today are different from those previously debated. However, as time passes we learn more and more about the frightening health risks of anal intercourse and the widespread abuse to which young people are subjected. We would be neglecting our duty if we ignored these dangers.
	When we last debated the matter, the arguments the Government marshalled in support of their proposals were about equality, justice and the removal of discrimination. It was said that the different age levels were in contravention of the European Court of Human Rights. That was based on the ground that heterosexual intercourse is legally permissible at 16 years of age and yet homosexual intercourse is not legally permissible until 18 years of age. I said then, and I say now, that, because the two acts are different, the question of equality of age does not arise under the law, although I recognise that it would be a dangerous wrong if a girl above the age of 16 could be subjected to buggery when boys would be protected until the age of 18. But the amendment thoroughly deals with this danger. The amendment draws a clear distinction between what I shall call normal, usual intercourse and anal intercourse. It accepts that normal intercourse is legally permissible at 16 years of age for men and women, and it provides that anal intercourse in respect of both men and women will be legally permissible at 18 years of age.
	The amendment clearly addresses the question of equality under the law. It quite correctly and sensibly concentrates on the acts, which are different, and applies the law in respect of each of them to men and women equally. I know that this view will not be acceptable to those who are not prepared to acknowledge that the respective acts of intercourse are different. But there is a clear difference. As long as the amendment, as it does, applies the same standards equally to both men and women in respect of each act, no charge of discrimination can legitimately be made.
	By way of example, albeit perhaps not a very good one, I say this. In this country it is illegal to sell tobacco to any person, male or female, under the age of 16 years, whereas when it comes to alcohol the age is 18 years for both young men and young women. The products are different; different ages apply; but they apply equally to both sexes; and, as far as I know, no one suggests that any discrimination is taking place. In what is before us, these acts of intercourse are different. The age proposals in each case apply equally to both sexes. Therefore, in my view, there is no discrimination.
	Now, as I have demonstrated, there is no question of discrimination in what is proposed in the amendment. But I also feel that it is important to justify why it is sensible and necessary to apply different age levels to the different acts of intercourse. I feel that there is a broad spread of views as to why this should be so and they will all have been canvassed in debates in this House. But my reasons for supporting the amendment are focused in two areas: first, health; and, secondly, avoiding as far as possible extending the risk of abuse to which young people are exposed.
	However, before I address those two areas, let me say that there is still widespread concern in this country about homosexuality which we should not ignore. We must not forget that the legalising of homosexuality was enacted only a relatively short time ago, with the age of consent being 21. It was reduced to 18 an even shorter time ago. Now it is proposed to reduce the age to 16. Many people think, "Where is it going to end?". There are many who oppose the reduction in the age of consent because they are either morally or religiously opposed totally to homosexuality; and much of our postbag confirms that. Many believe the act of homosexuality to be unnatural and say that it should not be permitted at all. On the other hand, there are those who see homosexuality as no different from heterosexuality as far as concerns the law. There are also those who believe there should be no age limit at all.
	For me, this amendment is not about these issues. It is argued on the question of health and abuse, and I stand four square with that approach. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others recognise that homosexual relationships will be legally permitted at the age of 16 for both boys and girls, short of buggery--short of permitting anal intercourse. No doubt many will be dissatisfied with that. Others will say that the amendment before the Committee reflects only a measure of damage limitation. Some will say that it is a shabby compromise. I do not accept any of those things. I believe that what is proposed in the amendment can be accepted by the Government.
	Yes, it is a compromise, but a compromise which recognises and addresses the reality of the age of consent for heterosexual intercourse at 16 years of age, which has been with us since the 19th century when it was raised from the age of 12 years. At the same time, it is a compromise which displays an awareness of the dangers of abuse to which young people are exposed and a consciousness of the health risks associated with anal intercourse. The health risk, we know, cannot be totally removed, but we should not take any step that places young people in greater danger, particularly at a time when the scourge of HIV and AIDS is sweeping this planet.
	Others can no doubt point to numerous examples of the health risk associated with anal intercourse. Therefore, I shall draw to the attention of the Committee only two examples of the dangers. First, in a healthcare analysis published as far back as 1994 it was stated:
	"The risk of HIV infection from anal intercourse is extremely high: for men it is at least 2,700 times the risk from vaginal intercourse".
	Secondly, the UK blood transfusion service leaflet states categorically:
	"If you are a man who's had sex with another man, even 'safe sex' using a condom, you should never give blood".
	Those two examples certainly convince me that we should take no steps that could increase the health risk to young people.
	Finally, I should like to refer to the danger of abuse to which young people can be exposed. I need not spend a great deal of time on this matter as we are all aware of the alarming number of reports of abuse in children's homes and at the hands of priests and others--often involving children below the age of 16, where paedophiles are involved. I know that we cannot prevent every criminal act but I do believe that we should never do anything that can lead to further abuse by unnecessarily making it easier for such abuse to take place. We know that when someone is abused it does not always end there, as those abused sometimes become abusers themselves.
	So when we consider which Lobby each one of us goes through, I ask noble Lords to contemplate the following quotation from W.H. Auden which I came across recently:
	"I and the public know
	What all schoolchildren learn,
	Those to whom evil is done
	Do evil in return".
	I ask noble Lords to consider also this question. If it is right to protect those under the age of 18 from abuse by people in positions of trust, is it not equally right to protect all those below the age of 18?

Viscount Bledisloe: I intervene to--

Lord McColl of Dulwich: I should like to--

Noble Lords: Cross Benches!

Lord Bach: I think it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

Viscount Bledisloe: I intervene only to raise one practical point which I hope the proposers of the amendment will explain. However, before doing so, I cannot forbear saying, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that it is odd to find high-minded grandparents suggesting that this somewhat elderly House knows best what people want and what parents want. If this measure is really so unpopular with those people, is it not surprising that those who are dependent on their votes at next election should be universally advancing this measure whereas those who do not need votes are saying how unpopular it is?
	If one has a law which states that sexual activity at the age of 16 is lawful unless it is anal intercourse, how on earth can it be enforced? What we are concerned with are consensual acts between people who are entitled to be in bed together. One cannot know whether they have committed a criminal offence unless it turns out that they have had anal intercourse. The authorities will not know whether they had anal intercourse except in two circumstances; first, where the 16 to 18 year-old needs to seek advice--probably medical advice or perhaps counselling--and then finds that he dare not do so because he will be dropping his partner in serious trouble; and, secondly, where the 16 to 18 year-old becomes vicious and wants to indulge in blackmail. How on earth will this law be properly enforced? And if it cannot be properly enforced, we should certainly not put it on the statute book.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: I should like to confine my remarks to the important medical facts about anal intercourse, which is practised by heterosexual and homosexual people. In fact, anal intercourse between male and female is commonly used as a form of contraception, which may account for the rapid transmission of AIDS in some areas.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, pointed out in a previous debate, the rectum is lined with a delicate gut epithelium, or lining, which is only one cell thick, measuring a very small fraction of a millimetre. That is in marked contrast to the lining of the vagina, which is a tough skin-like structure many cells thick. As the rectal lining is so delicate, it is frequently damaged by intercourse and therefore infected with a variety of hostile germs, the most severe being AIDS, hepatitis and a virus leading to anal cancer, together with the usual venereal diseases of syphilis, gonorrhoea and other infections. The vaginal lining, being much thicker and of tougher material, is more robust and resistant to infection, even to AIDS, unless there have been previous breaches in the lining due to venereal disease.
	In addition to the damage to the lining of the rectum, the tight and powerful muscles that surround the anal canal can also be damaged and those subjected to persistent damage can even become incontinent. In one series, the rate of incontinence has been one in three. Of course, when anal intercourse is practised on infants, the damage is even more severe and devastating. Cases have been recorded of infants as young as six months being subjected to this practice.
	The use of condoms is said to reduce the danger of anal intercourse, but in one series there was a breakage rate of 32 per cent, which was six times more common for the same group during vaginal intercourse. The slippage rate was 21 per cent, which was three times more common. Stronger, thicker condoms have passed laboratory tests, but they are not used consistently because of discomfort and decreased sensation. (This was recorded in a paper published by Silverman et al, in the journal Sexually Transmitted Disease, 1997, vol. 24 at page 14.) The failure rate of condoms for vaginal sex in one series was 52 per cent. Some 52 per cent had experienced condoms bursting or slipping off in the previous three months. (This was recorded by Kirkman et al, British Journal of Family Planning, 1990, vol. 15 at page 107.) Condoms have a pregnancy failure rate among the most motivated couples of 5 to 15 per cent. According to Williams in the British Medical Journal, 1995, vol. 311 at page 807, the main factor in unplanned teenage conception is contraceptive failure, not the lack of contraceptive knowledge and availability. Condom failure has become the leading cause of unwanted pregnancy, according to the British Medical Journal, 1996, vol. 312 at page 1059.
	There are, of course, inherent flaws in latex condoms and those flaws are at least 50 times larger than the AIDS virus. Incidentally, the AIDS virus is 450 times smaller than human sperm, so it is no surprise that the effectiveness of condoms for AIDS prevention is much worse than for contraception. That was pointed out by C.M. Rowland, the editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology.
	Having dealt with the dangers of anal intercourse in terms of infection and damage, the question of mortality should also be considered. Of 100 teenagers who continue to smoke 20 cigarettes a day, half of them will take, on average, 20 years off their life. Of 100 teenagers who practise anal sex, all of them, on average, will take 20 years off their life. As most males start anal sex at the age of 21, we would prefer them--from the medical point of view--not to begin this practice any earlier. I therefore see no point, medically, for lowering the age of consent.

Lord Walton of Detchant: I defer to the medical advice and opinion given by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. Every word that he said about the constitution of the anal canal, the rectal mucosa and the risks of HIV infection is absolutely right. But those same risks apply to the condition of the anal canal and the rectum at the age of 18, 20, 21, 24 or, indeed, at any age.
	I have agonised before deciding to speak in the debate because I find this to be an agonisingly difficult issue. It is so easy to understand and appreciate the absolute sincerity of those who speak on both sides of the argument. I personally find the whole idea of anal intercourse distasteful and even abhorrent. That is a view that I have held throughout my professional life. However, homosexuality has been a fact of life through the centuries. We need only look back to see that many notables in history, such as Alexander the Great and, indeed, an enormous number of distinguished people in public life--actors, politicians, scientists and others--have openly confessed to their homosexuality. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence, which is, I believe, now incontrovertible, that homosexuality is not a perversion produced by events in early childhood or even in the teenage years, but that it is genetically determined. It is a characteristic inborn in the individual as a result of their genes. That, I believe, is one of the most important facts to be considered.
	I should like to make one more point. When I was president of the General Medical Council, we agonised over the issue of whether advice should be given to underage girls and boys on matters related to contraception, abortion and so forth. We were then advised that, under the Family Law Act, valid consent, given by an individual of 16 years of age, is as valid as if given by an individual of full age. Then along came the Gillick judgment in the case of Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority. Mrs Gillick went to the courts to try to prevent doctors and other healthcare professionals from giving advice to her teenage children without her consent. Eventually, under that judgment, it was accepted that there were circumstances when, with total confidentiality, if a young person could not be persuaded to consult his or her parents, it might be valid in the interests of health to offer contraceptive or other appropriate advice, even under the age of 16.
	I have the greatest possible respect for the views held by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Since I came to this House 11 years ago, I have admired her support for universities, medical research, her consistent support for family values and her spirited advocacy of many other important matters, often based on her long-held and sincere Christian beliefs. She has won the respect of Members on all sides of the Committee. However, on this occasion, I have to say that I find myself in disagreement with her--but only for a few reasons. Why is it that the British Youth Council, NCH Action for Children (established by the Methodist Church), the Family Welfare Association, the Save the Children Fund, the National Children's Bureau and the NSPCC all favour this Bill? Furthermore, why do the medical opinions--after the most careful and earnest consideration--of the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Health Education Authority, the Royal College of Nursing and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS all favour this Bill? A number of good reasons may be put forward.
	No one in this House would ever condone the horrors of paedophilia or of child abuse. However, medical evidence states that, by the age of 16, people's sexuality is established and is unlikely to be influenced by any of their experiences beyond that age. A second, most important point--and one which arose as a result of the Gillick judgment--is that even though that legal judgment may be clear; namely, that in certain special circumstances a doctor could give advice on issues such as contraception and abortion to a young boy or girl under the age of 16, at the time there were many doctors who--although they had accepted that advice and had received consequential advice from the General Medical Council--felt unable and unwilling to give such advice because they believed that they were condoning an illegal act.
	The same issue arises in this situation. Of course anal intercourse presents a much greater risk of HIV transmission for homosexual and bisexual men than most other types of sexual activity. As the BMA pointed out, in genital urinary medicine clinics the Department of Health figures showed that one in 17 men were found to be HIV positive. Many of them had clearly been infected for years, some having plainly acquired the infection before the age of 18.
	It may be argued that if a young man of 16 seeks advice about his sexuality and whether it is right or wrong, whatever way he is protected, to have anal intercourse--which, as I said, I abhor--if the amendment were to be agreed, many doctors would now feel that, in giving health promotion advice to such individuals under the age of 18, they were condoning an illegal act. The same would be true of teachers and youth workers. For that reason, continued criminalisation of this activity for those under 18 is likely to prevent a significant number of young gay men seeking professional advice. It is also likely to inhibit some professionals--

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I am grateful to the noble Lord. We have heard a great deal today about the advice that is necessary for young people of 16--and possibly even younger--on the subject of homosexuality. Can the noble Lord say whether it is general practice, when giving such advice, to give warnings about the dangers of this act, about which we have heard a great deal?

Lord Walton of Detchant: Without question. It is entirely right that health professionals who are fully informed about the risks must say to an individual, "If you persist and if you go ahead, the risks are these". It is very important that the dangers should be made clear to individuals. But if they persist, the health professional would give advice about every possible means of protection, including the use of appropriate condoms.
	As a parent, a grandparent and now a great-grandparent twice over, I support the views of those who are concerned with the protection of young people and with the protection of the family. But, after agonising over this issue, for all the reasons I have given, I believe that the Bill should be supported.

The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: We have to recognise--

Lord Mishcon: Does the noble Lord--

Lord Bach: My noble friend is not intending to speak. He wishes to ask a question of the previous speaker.

Lord Mishcon: I am grateful. Does the noble Lord, for whose medical knowledge we all have such admiration and regard, really believe that the law would move against any doctor who gave the advice, "Please do not do it. But if you have to do it, and you will not follow my advice, these are the consequences"? The law indeed would be an ass if it moved a prosecution on those grounds, would it not?

Lord Walton of Detchant: I agree. I do not think for a moment that the law would do so. It is possible that professional organisations might condemn a doctor in those circumstances.

The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: We have to recognise that this is an area in which people of good faith can properly and rightly take a different view. I do not subscribe to the view that the law has nothing to do with morals; the law can have the important function of stating common ground. Nevertheless, I do not believe that an attempt to enforce morals in this area is likely to be a proper or effective use of the criminal law.
	Quite rightly, in my judgment, the debate has focused on the issue of protection, of which there are two aspects. The first aspect is the issue of health, on which persons far more knowledgeable than I--notably the noble Lord, Lord Walton--have spoken. The issue of health applies as much to those over 18 as to those under 18. That is absolutely fundamental. If the kinds of activities being described are so terrible that they need to be made a criminal offences for those under 18, surely they should be made criminal offences for those over 18. But that is absurd because we are talking, in general, about consensual acts.
	The question that has to be asked--in fact it has been asked already--is this: if young people need serious and informed advice and help in this area, are they likely to be helped by the knowledge that this has been made a matter of the criminal law? I do not think that they are. I think that they are more likely to ask for and find help if it is not criminalised.
	The second issue concerns the proper protection of young people from an abuse of trust by people in more powerful positions. Here I welcome the amendments brought forward by the Government in the version of the Bill that now stands before the Committee. I hope that, on balance, we shall feel able to support the Government and to resist these amendments.

Lord Monson: Before the right reverend Prelate sits down, does he not agree that while adults should be allowed to make terrible mistakes which endanger their health, minors are different? Minors should be protected from such mistakes in so far as they possibly can be.

The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: It is a question of what is likely to be the more effective mode of protection. I do not believe that the criminal law is likely to be sensible or effective in this area.

Lord Goldsmith: This is the first time that I have spoken in any of these debates, although I have sat through several and read carefully the Second Reading debate, which I was unable to attend, in full. I do not have the qualifications of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, nor those of the right reverend Prelate, to speak about these matters. I have one qualification, to which I shall return.
	What has struck me most about the difference between today and the Second Reading debate, is that the principles of equality, tolerance and non-discrimination which figured so largely now appear to be, in large measure, common ground. In my view, what matters is the extent to which the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness achieve equality, and the extent to which they achieve the concerns which have rightly been addressed by the right reverend Prelate--that is, the protection of children and the health of children.
	When I looked at the evidence of those who know far more about this than I do, I was impressed by the medical reasons in favour of reduction of the age of consent for anal intercourse. Of course it is the fact that anal intercourse is a risky form of sexual activity, but HIV experts agree that safe sex practices can largely--I shall not enter into the debate as to how far--eradicate those risks. That is why it is so important that young people receive good health advice about both the dangers and the measures which may reduce risks.
	Criminalising this conduct is not likely to prevent young persons with homosexual tendencies from having sexual experiences. Even before the age of consent was reduced from 21--

Lord Waddington: May it not dissuade men of mature years from having sex with children? One has to remember that when we talk of 16 year-olds, we are talking of children according to international law. I can understand the noble Lord's comments when he is addressing his remarks to two young men aged between 16 and 18 having sex relations with each other. But should we not bear in mind that the Bill does not merely legalise sex between two young people aged between 16 and 18, but legalises a man of mature years having anal sex with a boy of 16--a child? That is the point.

Lord Goldsmith: I want to deal with that. First, criminalising conduct in which young people may engage in any event will discourage and inhibit them from obtaining the advice and counselling that they need. That is not my view; it is the view of people who know far better than I do--namely, the NSPCC and the BMA, both of which recently stated that discrimination in law discourages young gay men from accessing sexual health services and help in coming to terms with their sexuality. It inhibits health agencies from providing advice to young people engaging in consensual, but criminalised, sexual activities. It is not a question of what the law provides; it is a question of inhibition.
	The Bill already deals with the question of persons in a position of trust. That is the most important way of dealing with the concerns that we all have about abuse by certain people--I give way to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Does he agree that a large number of categories are left outside the categories relating to those in a position of trust? If the noble Lord is making a point of that argument, I hope that he will support the inclusion of some of the categories that are the subject of the amendments before the Committee.

Lord Goldsmith: The noble Baroness deals with amendments that are yet to come. The Bill as it stands deals with the most important categories: educational institutions and residential care. But that is a matter to which the Committee will return.
	I do not believe, on the evidence, that young people are in need of special protection. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, current expert medical opinion is that sexuality is fixed at an earlier age.
	I have also considered the experience of other countries where the age of consent is generally the same. I said at the outset that I have only one qualification to speak: I am the father of teenage children--two boys and a girl, who are around precisely the age bracket about which we are concerned. Their care and protection is dearest to my heart. I am old-fashioned and traditional enough to be sure that I should be saddened if one of my boys came to me and said that, rather than having found a young woman whom he wanted to marry, he was setting up with a young man. But I should be more saddened still if he were slinking in corners, if he were fearful and suffered guilt because of his particular activity.
	In another place, Mr John Bercow made a courageous speech indicating that he had changed his mind. He said that now was the time for progress and reform. I respect the opinions of all Members of the Committee. I hope that many will enter the Lobby in support of the Bill and in opposition to the amendments.

Earl Ferrers: We are all concerned about the health of children and of young children. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford: I should have preferred no reduction in the age at which these activities are permitted. But, as my noble friend Lady Young said, the amendment is an effort to meet the Government part way, by providing that homosexual acts should be permissible at 16, other than buggery, whether of men or of girls.
	My noble friend Lord McColl told us of the sensitivities of the lining of the rectum, the breaking and slippage of condoms and the possibility of infection. He, together with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, said that the possibility of infection was 2,700 times greater with anal intercourse than with vaginal intercourse. That is a telling figure. To lower the age from 18 to 16 is to place people at risk, particularly girls, who, apart from anything else, may be deeply traumatised by such activity. Parliament has the right, indeed the duty, to protect young people. Lowering the age to 16 puts girls and young men at risk.
	It is sometimes forgotten that anal intercourse has only been permitted at age 18 since 1994. Before that the permitted age was 21. I was in the Home Office when the legislation came through. I was obliged to respond to an amendment to the Bill. I do not like to rub the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General's face in it--actually, I do rather like doing that, but I know that it is his noble friend who will reply. When I came to answer the amendment, I did not think it was right that the age should be lowered from 21 to 18. I said: "Can I say that, because I think it is wrong". The advice from my officials was perfectly clear. They said: "No, you can't. This has always been a matter for conscience and it should be decided by the free vote of those in the House of Lords or in another place". I said: "Can I say at the end which way I intend to vote?". They said: "Yes, you can say that. That is your view. But it is not the Government's view". That was good advice, because this has always been a matter of individual conscience.
	I want to know why the provision is being changed. Why have the Government suddenly decided to take up this matter and why do they believe it is right to change and to lower the age? There is no strong public opinion in favour of it. It was not in the Government's manifesto. Why have they decided to make this change on a matter which has never been a subject of government policy?
	It is a great mistake for the Government to interfere on this matter. In the previous debate about the morality of mink farming, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to the overwhelming number of people who had written in in favour of the proposal. She said that the postbags show that the Government are right. If that is to be the criterion on which government decisions are made, then I point out that the overwhelming number of people who have written to me and to other noble Lords have been wholly in favour of not lowering the age to 16.
	The Government are wrong, first, to lower the age; secondly, to consider it their responsibility to do so without any mandate or any evidence that it is the right thing to do. They are making a great mistake in introducing this provision so quickly after the age was lowered to 18--only six years ago. What has happened in the past six years to make the Government behave almost like the Gadarene swine and say that now the age must be changed from 18 to 16? There has been no demand for such a change. Indeed, there has been widespread anxiety. I hope that the Committee will agree with my noble friend Lady Young in her amendment.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: I speak as a new Member of this place and within the category of "kindly grandfather". I have five adult children and I have listened carefully to them over the past years and months in relation to the areas that we are continuing to debate. I have also listened carefully to the diocese that I serve, which covers Essex and five east London boroughs. I have met considerable concern from many different age groups and many different constituencies about the proposal to lower the age of consent to 16.
	In listening again to the arguments put forward this afternoon, which have been most cogently and powerfully put both in the areas of protection and health--indeed, it so important to focus upon these aspects--I recognise how carefully they are balanced. Yet I would want to urge your Lordships to consider very carefully the amendment that has been put before us by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I have greatly respected the noble Baroness's dogged and consistent working at bringing a reasoned and reasonable--I underline the words "reasoned and reasonable"--opposition to this particular Bill. I have remained opposed in my own mind to this Bill, but I believe that the amendment before us this afternoon offers a way forward.

Earl Russell: We have had an excellent and fascinating debate. However, in terms of principles, language and reference, we must accept that we are living in two different worlds. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, invoked his postbag. When I think of my own postbag on this subject, which is quite a large one, I can say that I have only received a single letter that agreed with the view taken by the noble Earl. I am sorry. Indeed, if they agreed with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I do not think that they would write to me. Alternatively, if they agreed with me, I do not believe that they would write to the noble Earl.

Earl Ferrers: In that case, the noble Earl will agree that one is perfectly justified in holding the view held by the majority of people who have written to me--and, as far as I know, to my noble friends--and who are against the Bill.

Earl Russell: It is not clear which side has the majority. However, it is clear to me that there is strong opinion on both sides of the question. It also seems to me that there is a very clear division in terms of age.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, felt offended by what is on the Government's website. I am sorry about that, but I cannot comment on it because I am incapable of reading websites. I belong to the older generation. But from what the noble Baroness quoted, I cannot believe that among my pupils, who are between the ages of 18 and 21, more than one in 100 would have taken any offence at those words. We really are in different worlds.
	Indeed, as recently as last Thursday, after a tutorial had concluded, I was trying to persuade one of my pupils who had taken great offence at the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the noble Baroness was an entirely reasonable, friendly and good-natured person whom I rather liked. I put a lot of effort into that, and I have to do so quite often. So we must accept that we are in different worlds.
	However, if we are trying to apply these amendments to a particular age group, we should also take account of the fact that we need a measure of consent within that group. That seems to me to be very largely lacking. Among my pupils, there are one or two who agree with the view taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. But they are very few and far between. It simply is not the language of the generation. Both my children tell me that they know of no one who takes that view; and they get around a bit.
	The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, also raised the point--

Lord Elton: Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl a question that has occurred to me frequently over the past year in this House. Is there not genuinely a form of wisdom that is the wisdom of hindsight; and does not age and experience count for something in the guidance of the young?

Earl Russell: Yes, it does count for something. But consent to the criminal law also counts. My argument is that I do not believe that that consent will be forthcoming. Without it, the law tends to be brought into disrepute. In enforcing the criminal law on a group of people, there is such a thing as a "blocking third": if a third of the population affected by the law believes that there is no justifiable moral basis for the law, it becomes extremely difficult to enforce. One may welcome that or regret it, but either way I believe it to be fact.
	The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, also raised the question of the two-stage process. He asked why this had come about so soon after 1994. He might consider the case in 1918 when the vote was given to women--again, with an unequal age of voting: 30 against 21. It took 10 years before the ages were equalised. Sir Charles Oman, the Member for Oxford University, speaking in another place at the time said that that was just about the end of civilisation. However, as I observe the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in her place in the Chamber today, I do not think that it has been. We should not be too surprised--six years instead of 10--things may have improved a little. But the situation still remains that, where you have a two-bites-of-the-cherry process, you do move on from one to the other.
	This Bill was a manifesto commitment for my party, but it is also a matter of a free vote. Therefore, although I speak for party policy, I speak for myself and, in so far as I do ask for support, I seek it from every quarter of the Chamber on an equal basis. I have not tabled any amendments to the Bill. It is a Parliament Act 1911 Bill. Section 2(3) of that Act says:
	"A Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords if it is not passed by the House of Lords either without amendment or with such amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses".
	So while I listen to the debate with an open mind, as I must do, I am not at present minded to support amendments unless I see some chance of their receiving support in another place. Personally, I have been waiting 43 years for this Bill. I do not regard it as precipitate.
	I am also concerned that the Bill should pass through this Chamber because I believe that the issue has done more damage to the reputation of this House, in those quarters within--

Noble Lords: Oh!

Earl Russell: Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to finish my sentence. I was about to say that this issue has done more damage to the reputation of this House in the quarters within which I move than anything else since Irish home rule. I cannot answer for what it has done in other quarters. Those concerned may perhaps answer for that better than I can. I began by saying that this was a matter of intense division of opinion, so all that I say is with that premise--

Baroness Park of Monmouth: I simply want to ask the noble Earl a question because I am genuinely puzzled. As I understand it, the amendment recognises that there shall be freedom for homosexual acts to be committed between consenting adults from the age of 16 onwards and only makes an exception for one particular act, which we have been told by many speakers from all sides carries far greater implications, results and dangers than anything else. Therefore, I do not see what is wrong with accepting the principle of homosexuality and the right of people to make choices, while making it clear from the beginning to both parties to the act (including the older and more experienced person) that that act of buggery is too dangerous to contemplate until we are out of the stage of childhood with 16 year-olds. What is the problem with that compromise?

Earl Russell: The noble Baroness just about anticipates my next few words. I apologise for what may have been a rather long introduction. However, as it appeared to be giving rise to some controversy, I elaborated on one or two points. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me.
	We all find that we occasionally experience a sense of distaste when hearing about other people's sexual practices--homosexual and heterosexual equally. Indeed, just as happened to me when I read in a newspaper entry on 14th February, "Tinky Winky loves Pig Face". I do not see why I need to know; it has nothing to do with me. I do not really want to know about other people's sexual practices in private because it is nothing to do with me. A great deal of the distaste that I feel is very often because I know that I really should not know anything about it. It is not my business. As for the danger, we are not dealing here only with homosexual practices. We are told that 13 per cent of heterosexuals of both sexes have had experience of anal intercourse. Most of them appear to be still here and in reasonably good health.
	The Terrence Higgins Trust which has some knowledge of these matters tells us,
	"The view on anal intercourse being 2,700 times more risky in terms of HIV ... is wholly misleading".
	I do not know the evidence for that but the opinion itself at least deserves a hearing. The trust also points out:
	"There are more newly diagnosed cases of HIV in the UK among heterosexuals than gay men. Indeed ... globally over 90% of HIV infections occur as a result of heterosexual intercourse".
	The days when one could associate HIV with homosexuality constituted a brief phase before the disease spread into the heterosexual community. That is now over.
	I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and others. I am not certain that the danger is anything like as great as it is made out to be. But even if it is, I do not believe that danger has ever deterred people from sexual practice. If that had been so, and as the danger to women until recent times in bearing a child was so great, I believe that few of your Lordships would be here now.

Lord Waddington: Does not the noble Earl agree that the possibility of punishment might deter an older man from having sexual intercourse with a boy of say, 16, particularly if the older man knew that if he infected the boy and gave him HIV the punishment would be heavy?

Earl Russell: It might, but it might also, among those who are attracted by the idea of danger, turn the man on. I am not convinced that on balance it makes any great difference. When people are sufficiently determined in this area they are not often deterred by punishment, especially if they think that detection is unlikely. In the case of buggery, I do not see by what means it could be detected. One wonders whether it might be detected by means of CCTV, but I cannot believe that the framers of the amendment contemplate anything so drastic, particularly as there are considerable risks in what might happen to the film thereafter. If it is not to be detected that way, we are left with the point made with great power by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham; namely, how can we know? If we cannot know, we cannot enforce the law. I am against making laws which cannot be enforced.
	I know how the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will reply to that. She will say, more or less, that the purpose of the law as she intends it is to send a signal. I do not approve of that method of legislating. I do not think that the law is a form of sermon. As soon as you pass a law for no other purpose than to send a signal, knowing you cannot enforce it, you are giving the signal that the law can be disobeyed with impunity. As one who respects the law, I do not like giving the signal that the law can be disobeyed with impunity.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Young, talks about the protection of children. That is a common objective. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I also care about the protection of children, but I want to protect them from the fear and guilt of knowing that they risk punishment and disgrace for being what they are when they cannot be other than they are. That is not what I think the law should be for. I shall support the Bill and oppose the amendment.

Lord Boardman: Before the noble Earl sits down, is there not the possibility of the criminal law being applied where an older man, say, 30 years old, seduces a 16 year-old and causes that 16 year-old damage of which he ultimately complains?

Earl Russell: If the act was not consensual, there can be a complaint. Otherwise--I speak as one whose parents met when one of them was 65 and the other was 19--if the noble Lord's philosophy had been followed, I might not be here now and I should regret that!

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As I am a signatory to the--

Lord Ackner: So am I.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I give way to the noble and learned Lord.

Lord Ackner: I have an abiding recollection of an observation made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor during the debate on the then House of Lords Bill. It was in relation to what was known as the Weatherill amendment. He said,
	"I must be brutally frank".
	It never occurred to me why he should be brutally frank. With the majority he had in the House of Commons he could have been delicately frank with just the same degree of success.
	When the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, had the courage as a layman to speak in regard to the anal intercourse versus vaginal intercourse debate, there was almost a sense of embarrassment in the House on the basis, I think, that we were dealing with an issue of discrimination and therefore we did not need to go in to all the irrelevant, sordid details.
	I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, as she has produced an amendment which gets away entirely from the question of discrimination. Therefore the kind of attitude I mentioned cannot be adopted by the House. We are not haunted--as we were--by the spectre of the European courts, nor by the pleasure of hearing a tutorial on the subject from the noble Lord, Lord Lester. This is a situation where there is no question of discrimination. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McColl, on doing what is essential where one is dealing with questions of health; namely, setting out the situation as a doctor so that the issue of embarrassment does not arise.
	My next point has not been mentioned. Strangely enough, there is a letter in today's Daily Telegraph, signed by a number of doctors, and headed "dangers of unnatural sex". The letter states, among other things,
	"The Government's commitment to reducing the age of consent introduces vulnerable teenagers to a lifestyle strongly linked to premature death. It causes physical damage to the anus and spreads infections such as hepatitis and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV. Men who practise anal sex and then have sex with women give them very severe pelvic infections with resulting infertility or chronic ill health".
	We have at last reached the position in this House where it is accepted that homosexuality in relation to this kind of activity--which some regard as a perverted activity--involves the young, and anyone else who takes part in it, in considerably greater risk. In those circumstances the Government are legislating in a manner which it is agreed may well increase the prospect of disease or ill health among those whom it is our principal duty to safeguard--the very young. In that situation, the onus on the Government must be particularly high. They must justify why it is necessary to reduce the age from 18 to 16 in regard to this activity. What is the principle involved to justify that? It is not discrimination; that has gone out of the window. What remains? Is it the difficulty in policing the activities between 18 or 16 year-olds and those older? But that applies to every situation where one has the age of consent. On that argument, one would abolish restrictions on age altogether.
	What other explanation or suggestion is made? Is it that safe sex is an answer to this particular risk. But it is not. That has been made clear by the medical experts. I quote from an article published about a year ago by Dr Jeffrey Satinover. He says that,
	"comparable tears in the vagina are not only less frequent because of the relative toughness of the vaginal lining, but the environment of the vagina is vastly cleaner than that of the rectum. Indeed, we are designed with a nearly impenetrable barrier between the bloodstream and the extraordinarily toxic and infectious contents of the bowel. Anal intercourse creates a breach in this barrier for the receptive partner, whether or not the insertive partner is wearing a condom".
	The suggestion is that the ultra tough condom will suit the bill. Everyone knows that the ultra tough condom will not be worn. No condom is often the case because, as has been said, some people delight in taking the risk.
	In all the circumstances, I cannot see how this heavy onus can be discharged. That seems to be the right test. The Government are about to embark upon something which can seriously and significantly prejudice the health of the young. In those circumstances, what is their justification? The answer is: none that we have heard here.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As a signatory to the amendment, perhaps I should explain some of my reasons for signing it. I believe, as does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that this measure equalises the position. We have to bear that very much in mind. I also signed the amendment because I believed that it was a reasonable compromise between opposing points of view. I believe that it was a compromise which would be welcomed on all sides of the Committee; and from all sides of the argument. However, that does not appear to have been the case today. That is a matter for regret.
	My noble friend Lord Alli said that the amendments were designed to wreck the Bill. That is wholly untrue. The amendments do not wreck the Bill. I believe that the amendments do what amendments should do: they improve the Bill. In no sense do they wreck the Bill; and in no sense can they wreck the Bill. The Bill will stand as the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill with the amendments in the same way as it would without them. So they are not wrecking amendments.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also said that the public view is not behind the amendments. Where on earth has the noble Earl taken his opinions from?

Viscount Simon: Students.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: From students, yes. That is a very good intervention. All the letters I have received are in favour of the amendments and have urged me to support the amendments. I did not need to be urged because I was going to do so anyway. But the total number of letters and representations that I have received support the amendment.
	Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the noble Earl asked how the amendments will be enforced and said that they are unenforceable; that there will have to be video cameras in the bedrooms. If that is true at 18 and 17 years, it is just as true at 16. So the noble Earl is saying that we should abolish all legislation for any age. Is that not the outcome of the argument? I shall give way in my time.

Viscount Bledisloe: Does the noble Lord recognise that if a man of 20 is in a bedroom with a boy of 17, it raises a strong presumption (probably from the state of the bed) that they have been indulging in sexual activity. If all sexual activity is illegal, there you are. But if some form of sexual activity is legal, and one particular form is illegal, without prying cameras how on earth does anyone know what has gone on in that bedroom?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I did not suggest that we should have video cameras; it was the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I do not follow the noble Viscount's argument. He appears to be arguing against me and yet the words he uses appear to be arguing for me.
	I repeat that if you cannot enforce the law in relation to buggery at 18, it will be just as difficult to do so at 16. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, shakes his head but I should have thought that that was obvious. I say this to the noble Viscount and to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Generally speaking, people are law abiding. I do not believe that homosexuals are any less law abiding than anyone else. If we had such law, we would expect and hope that they would obey it.
	We have also heard today about the generation gap. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, again referred to it. Of course, there is a generation gap. I can remember the Wolfenden report. Indeed, I knew Sir John Wolfenden because I was a member of the court and the council of Reading University at the time when he was preparing his great report. My noble friend Lord Mishcon helped to prepare the report. Those of us who defended that report had to argue very strongly indeed--more strongly than is being argued at present--to get that report set into law. So we do not want to be lectured about generation gaps, when some of us fought to get rid of the serious injustices that were practised against homosexuals. We were there. We fought for the Wolfenden report and got it administered.
	Are we now saying that older people may not give counsel and leadership to young people? Young people deserve our assistance and advice and should expect the benefit of our experience. There is no generation gap. I hope that there will be co-operation between the generations.
	We have heard from two members of the medical profession this afternoon, both of whom agreed on the medical aspects. The medical fact is that anal sex is dangerous. That has been established and we should not overlook it.
	We have an overriding duty to protect the young and the vulnerable. We should do that in all circumstances. I find it amazing that we all apparently want to protect children from everything else--tobacco, hard and soft drugs, alcohol, financial exploitation, contract signing and paedophiles--but not from buggery. Why do we not want to protect them from buggery, when we have heard distinguished medical opinion this afternoon that it is dangerous to their health and their longevity?
	We have had a good debate and I have listened carefully to everything that has been said, but I believe now, as I did when I signed the amendments, that we are being offered a reasonable compromise. For the sake of our children and young people, we should unite behind the amendments.

The Duke of Montrose: Rather unusually, we are making legislation for Scotland as well as for the rest of the United Kingdom. At Second Reading, the Attorney-General pointed out that there was a full debate on the procedure for the Bill in the Scottish Parliament on 19th January this year. It was argued that, as the Bill had been thought through in its first incarnation at Westminster before devolution, and as the Government wanted to be in a position to invoke the Parliament Act if they saw fit, this further stage of legislation should be carried through at Westminster on the basis of the Bill presently before us.
	Some of the Labour Members in that debate showed a marked antipathy to the idea of anyone having a further say on legislation proposed by the other place. They take great delight in single-chamber legislation in Scotland and they are probably not familiar with the number of government amendments and others that are routinely added in your Lordships' House. Also, probably through a lack of familiarity with our procedures, one Member accused us of going against parliamentary procedure for previously turning down the Bill. Presumably that accusation derived from ignorance of the fact that the procedure applies only to policies contained in a Government's election manifesto. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers has pointed out, this was not part of the Labour Party's Westminster manifesto, though no doubt in Scotland they will have had to adopt it as part of their coalition settlement with the Liberal Democrats.
	If I may digress, that raises an interesting theoretical issue for voters under a proportional representation system, because they could end up getting all of both parties' manifesto proposals, even if the majority voted for only one set of them.
	I have tried to follow the arguments that have been put before the us and I have asked questions of a considerable number of people who work in areas that seem to be germane to the issue. The Government's contention, given in their Answer on 6th November to my noble friend Lady Blatch, that there are no differences between the risks involved in anal and normal sex, was presumably supposed to refer to promiscuous sex among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. There is a clear difference between the risks for the two groups in monogamous sexual relations.
	I make my living as a livestock farmer, so I may not be as squeamish about some of the issues as might be proper in the Chamber as we sail in great style through all the goings on. I have read the study published recently under the name of B. G. Silverman, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, on the effectiveness of condoms and their breakage and slippage rates. That is a considerable risk, even before we consider the preference of some, referred to a few minutes ago, for no form of protection.
	We have heard in some detail about the pathogens involved. We have great faith that whatever infectious disease comes upon us, medical science can be relied on for a cure. That faith was temporarily dented by the advent of AIDS, but we still like to think that science will win out in the end. However, another publication tells me that there is widespread increased resistance to penicillin in homosexual and bisexual men. That is presumably due to the number of times that they have to resort to such medication to maintain their preferred lifestyle.
	We allow those whose settled view is that that is the lifestyle that best suits them the freedom to continue with it. The amendment addresses the fact that some young men mature later. Their smooth young looks may even make them more attractive to those looking for a pretty boy. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, tells us that their sexuality is fixed. Can he also tell us whether they are still uncertain of their sexuality? The amendment would give them some protection from the undoubted dangers of anal sex until they reach the age of 18, when presumably they will be clear in their choice.
	Given our reliance on the effectiveness of education to persuade girls that it is better to postpone sexual activity until they are 16, it should be equally possible to persuade boys that they should postpone anal sex for another two years. Those who give such teaching should also impart an understanding of sexuality and explain that differences do occur.
	I read somewhere a text that is probably familiar to some of your Lordships. It says:
	"Put not your faith in princes, nor in any child of man".
	We are almost getting to the stage of saying, "put not your faith in condoms or in antibiotics".

Lord Plant of Highfield: I shall speak briefly in favour of the Bill, as I have done on previous occasions. My main point is equality between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. In a democratic society, there are certain core values, such as equality of concern for each individual, equality of respect for each individual and equality of interests, in the sense that each person's interests should be considered equally with everyone else's. There can be no greater interest to someone than their sexuality or sexual orientation.
	What might be the arguments for moving away from equality of treatment? We have heard three this afternoon. The first, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity, is that homosexual acts are somehow unnatural. I believe that that is a dangerous argument in that what is natural and unnatural cannot determine a moral point of view. Most of human civilisation occurs in a fantastic struggle against nature. One cannot assume that what is natural is good and what is unnatural is bad. We must look at what is natural and unnatural from our own moral perspective. It is because each of us has a moral perspective that we believe that something that is natural is good or that something unnatural is bad. What is natural and unnatural does not determine that perspective.
	In a democratic society moral perspectives will differ markedly, as is obvious from the debate this afternoon. Therefore, in a democratic society I believe that those who have strong views about issues of morality should be prepared to stay their hand over those views if forcing them through a legislature would disadvantage particular groups in the community and infringe the basic democratic values that I have mentioned.
	The second reason for departing from equality would be if the actions were harmful to others--that is, others outside the relationship. However, as such relationships are private, it is difficult to see how others could be harmed by them. A great deal of play has been made of the third reason; namely, self harm, and the idea that such acts are likely to cause harm to the individuals who engage in them.
	I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord McColl. Everything that he said was most telling. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, agreed with everything that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said. However, he drew very different conclusions from exactly the same set of medical facts. My sympathies in this argument lie with the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I share many of his hesitations and concerns but, in the end, I go along with his views.
	Therefore, I believe that whether in terms of nature, in terms of harm to others or in terms of self harm, there are no good grounds for moving away from the idea of equality. On other occasions my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has made equality of treatment central to this issue. I believe that there is the strongest possible case for doing so again.
	Perhaps I may--

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Before the noble Lord leaves the question of equality, does he agree that one great inequality lies in the rate at which children mature? Does he agree that some children are very mature at the age of 16, but most are not mature until the age of 18?

Lord Plant of Highfield: I spent most of my life in education. I have three sons who have had girlfriends and friends who are boys. To be honest, I have not noticed that type of rigid difference. Obviously--

Baroness Blatch: I apologise profusely to the noble Lord for intervening from a sedentary position. My noble friend was making the opposite point. He was not saying that the difference is rigid; he was saying that young people develop at different stages. However, the general point is that at the age of 16 one is not mature enough to make that type of decision.

Lord Plant of Highfield: I meant to say that my experience of being in a houseful of young children for most of my adult life does not lead me to take the view that the noble Lord took. I do not believe that there is a case for moving from equality.
	Although it is not an addition to the argument, perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity, who quoted some moving words from W H Auden, that it is worth remembering that Auden himself was a homosexual who for many years lived in a very faithful relationship with Chester Kallman.

Lord Davies of Coity: Before my noble friend sits down, that may well be true. But I do not believe that he was 16 years old when that relationship developed.

Lord Mishcon: We have had a most uninhibited debate. I have been termed a grandfather. However, on first hearing the word "buggery" in this Chamber my own grandfather would have dragged me out. As I said, we have had a most frank and useful debate.
	My only contribution arises out of the speech of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. He said that I had had some part, as had he, in the preparation of the Wolfendon report. Indeed, I was a member and, I am told, the last surviving member of the Wolfendon committee. I believe that it would interest the Committee if I were to read an excerpt from the section of the report where the committee was considering the very question of age and the appropriateness of age. Then I promise your Lordships, and especially the Whips, that I shall sit down:
	"There must obviously be an element of arbitrariness in any decision on this point"--
	that is, the question of consent of age--
	"but, all things considered, the legal age of contractual responsibility seems to us to afford the best criterion for the definition of adulthood in this respect. While there are some grounds for fixing the age as low as 16, it is obvious that, however mature a boy of that age may be as regards physical development or psychosexual make-up, and whatever analogies may be drawn from the law relating to offences against young girls, a boy is incapable at the age of 16 of forming a mature judgment about actions of a kind which might have the effect of setting him apart from the rest of society. A young man between 18 and 21 may be expected to be rather more mature in this respect. We have, however, encountered several cases in which young men have been induced by means of gifts of money or hospitality to indulge in homosexual behaviour with older men and we have felt obliged to have regard to the large numbers of young men who leave their homes at or about the age of 18 and either for their employment or their education or to fulfil their National Service obligations are then for the first time launched into the world in circumstances which render them particularly vulnerable to advances of this sort".
	That portion of the Wolfendon report related to any homosexual act. Without taking the liberty of guessing at what members of the committee might have told your Lordships today--it would be wrong of me to do so--I can only give my personal view that that would be their opinion at this stage when relating acts of buggery to the age of 18 instead of 16.
	It seems to me to be absurd--I use the word advisedly--to know, as a lawyer, that if a young man of 16 were to sign a tenancy agreement of a bedsitting room, his act would be voidable because under the law it is considered that he is not capable of making a contractual obligation and does not have the experience to do so, but he would be responsible for what happened in that bedsitting room, and so would we if we reduced the age of consent to 16.

Earl Russell: Before the noble Lord sits down, I honour him for his contribution to the Wolfendon committee. However, is he aware that he has made the same mistake as did my great-grandfather in relation to the first reform Bill? He is playing the part of Finality Jack. My great-grandfather ultimately thought better of it. I hope that the noble Lord will do the same.

Lord Mishcon: I respect any ancestor of the noble Earl and will pay my respect to him. However, it may be that that ancestor was even more sensible than the noble Earl.

Baroness Blatch: It is customary in this Chamber to offer congratulations when a maiden speech is made and it is my understanding that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford made his maiden speech this afternoon in the course of this debate. If I am right about that, I wish to congratulate the right reverend Prelate.
	He took at least one of the two main pieces of advice that one receives when making a maiden speech; namely, to be brief. The right reverend Prelate was indeed brief. I am not sure about the other piece of advice--to be non-controversial. But the right reverend Prelate will not be surprised to know that I welcomed his comments and we shall welcome his support this evening.
	I rise to support my noble friend Lady Young. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, who was the first to speak after my noble friend, said that he would have preferred a straight rejection of the Bill. I say "amen" to that. That is precisely what I should have preferred and I know that my noble friend would have preferred that too.
	The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that he supports the Bill for reasons of equality. The noble Lord is not present in his place but I should wish to remind him that my noble friend has dealt with the whole issue of equality, which dominated our previous debates.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alli, accused my noble friend Lady Young of being unprincipled because her amendments before the Committee represent a compromise. My noble friend explained the amendments very well, in my opinion. The Government have stated their intention to use the Parliament Act on this matter of conscience, which removes our power to succeed in opposing the lowering of the age of consent. I agree with my noble friend Lady Seccombe who said that the use of the Parliament Act on a matter of conscience is an outrage.

Lord Alli: If it is a matter of principle, as the noble Baroness has just said, why is she supporting the amendment? If it is a matter of principle, surely she should be seeking to vote out the Bill and not to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.

Baroness Blatch: Has the noble Lord, Lord Alli, ever heard of politics being the art of the possible? We know that the Government intend to use the Parliament Act and we have no power to prevent that on this matter of conscience. Therefore, we are doing what we can to protect the most vulnerable young people in our communities.

Earl Russell: On the point of the Parliament Act and a matter of conscience, does the noble Baroness remember the War Crimes Act 1991?

Baroness Blatch: I am referring to this legislation. We are concerned about the protection of young people. The amendments are an attempt to offer greater protection to girls and the more vulnerable young people from that dangerous practice of buggery.
	To describe my noble friend as unprincipled is deeply offensive. My noble friend is a person of the highest integrity and principle.
	Reference was made to the fact that the public have not been sounded out on this issue. But I remind the Committee that there was a referendum of all the people in Scotland. The overwhelming reply from the people of Scotland--and I have no reason whatever to believe that the answer would be different from the people of this country--was that they supported my noble friend in all her efforts and they certainly do not wish to see any lowering of the age of consent.
	As has been said, we make laws on drinking, smoking and dropping litter in the street. To say that we are not fit to address this issue, which is serious in terms of morality and health, is simply not true.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, referred to it as being high-minded to discuss these matters. But we discuss education, youth policies and all sorts of issues which affect young people. This is just another social issue which affects young people.
	But when we pass laws in Parliament, we send messages in relation to what the government of the day think about the laws of the land. This is an important message which should be modified. If we cannot reject the Bill, then, in my view, it should be modified.
	The most significant point that I want to make this evening is that, apart from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, little has been said about the most vulnerable young people in our community. Later this evening, we shall be discussing what may be described as the Waterhouse amendments. We know, because of the evidence in the report of those dreadful happenings in Wales, that much of the sexual activity which took place in those cases would be made legal under this Bill. We know that vulnerable young people, especially those who live their lives in institutions, go to great lengths to seek affection. Very often, they are inveigled into situations in which, because they seek affection and want to be loved and wanted, they find themselves seriously compromised.
	We know from the conclusions of Professor Waterhouse's report that many of those young people between the ages of 16 and 18 are farmed out to third parties--not those named in the abuse of trust clauses in the Bill--for sex. That would be made legal under the Bill.
	The case for these amendments has been made powerfully by my noble friend Lady Young and others. Therefore, I shall not detain the Committee any longer. My noble friend has fought for the health and protection of children with great courage. She has often been subjected to much ridicule and offensive comment. I shall willingly join her in the Division Lobby this evening and I hope that the majority of Members of the Committee will also do so.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on his maiden speech. I, too, noticed two things about it: first, it was commendably short; and, secondly, it was very clear and sincere. I hope that we shall hear more from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford in the months and years to come on a whole number of topics, because he plainly has a great deal to contribute to the proceedings of this House.
	I turn now to the issues. There has been an extremely powerful and strong debate today in which both sides of the argument have been strongly and clearly put. I should not assist the Committee by going through each of the contributions which have been made. I hope that the Committee will forgive me for not doing that.
	Perhaps I may identify what seem to me to be the main issues in relation to this matter. First, the Bill is advanced by the Government on the basis of equality. The point was made by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General on Second Reading that homosexuals are entitled to equality before the law. That is the reason that the Bill was introduced.
	The equality issue requires that homosexuals should be entitled to the same rights before the law in relation to sexual activity as heterosexuals. That principle of equality before the law appears to be accepted by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and those who support her in relation to putting forward the amendment.
	But in those circumstances, homosexual sexual activity, including anal intercourse, is to be regarded in a different way from heterosexual intercourse. So a distinction is to be drawn between the homosexual and the heterosexual. So there is not equality on that basis.
	Therefore, the Government do not accept the basic premise advanced by the noble Baroness--namely, that her amendment provides equality.

Baroness Blatch: Does the noble and learned Lord accept that both boys and girls can indulge in heterosexual sex but that under the amendments, both boys and girls would not be allowed to indulge in homosexual activity? It is equal for both in both cases.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I accept entirely the description which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has given of the amendments. It was just as clearly put by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. But homosexual intercourse involves anal intercourse; heterosexual intercourse will not. In those circumstances, it is being said that a different rule should apply to heterosexuals from that which should apply to homosexuals. That is the basic premise in relation to equality which we advance in rejecting the amendments.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Is the noble and learned Lord really saying as the logic of his argument that one should equate vaginal intercourse with anal intercourse? Many would not accept that.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The proposition that underlines the rejection of the amendment advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is that homosexuals and heterosexuals, in relation to the expression of their sexual activity, should have equality before the law. That is exactly the proposition that has been put--I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is nodding--and that is the logic of the Government's position.
	The noble Baroness and those who support her say that as long as the situation is the same in relation to anal intercourse there will be equality before the law. With respect, the Government do not accept that proposition. Homosexuals are entitled to an equal age of consent to that of heterosexuals. That is the basic position that we accept and put forward in relation to this Bill. That is the point of principle that divides those who support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, from those who support the Government in rejecting the amendment.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am a little muddled about the definition. I am not an expert on this matter. Is the Minister saying--this may be a stupid question--that the only form of homosexual intercourse is anal intercourse? I understand that to be part of his argument in relation to equality.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I say that homosexuals and heterosexuals are entitled to equality before the law, and that will include the homosexual being entitled to express his sexuality in the way that he wants.
	The second argument advanced in relation to this amendment was that to protect children and to avoid health risks that arise from anal intercourse the age of consent for anal intercourse, whether female or male, should be 18. So the medical risks and the interests of children were put at the forefront of the arguments of the noble Baroness.
	The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, in a well-measured speech, set out the position of the BMA in relation to that matter. That organisation rightly identified that anal intercourse presents a much greater risk for HIV transmission for homosexuals and bisexual men than most other types of sexual activity. Therefore, it is of the highest importance that young men who are at such risk have access to health promotion advice from professionals such as doctors, teachers or youth workers to help them to avoid infection.
	However, the BMA said:
	"Continued criminalisation of this activity for those under 18 is likely to prevent a significant number of young gay men from seeking professional advice. It is also likely to inhibit professionals from providing adequate information to those under 18 about how to make the riskiest practices safer including the use of condoms. The BMA Foundation for AIDS believes there is no convincing medical reason for retaining a higher age of consent for anal intercourse between men, but strong medical reasons why it should be reduced to 16 years".
	That is the view of the British Medical Association in relation to the health risks. Not for one moment do I want to become involved in the detail of the health issues, but I look at the views of an independent body of doctors in relation to that and that is their considered view in relation to the health risks.
	It was said that this amendment will put children at risk. Like the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, perhaps I may indicate some organisations that support the Bill: the NSPCC, Barnardo's, the National Children's Homes, Action for Children, the National Youth Agency, the National Children's Bureau, the British Youth Council, Save the Children Fund, Family Welfare Association, Health Education Authority, British Medical Association, Family Planning Association, Children's Rights Development Unit, National Association of Probation Officers, British Association of Social Workers, Royal College of Nursing, Royal College of Psychiatrists and Amnesty International.
	Those bodies plainly have as their main concern the interests of young people and they support the reduction in the age of consent to 16. On a regular, day-to-day basis, they deal with the problems that people face. I respect their views and before the Committee decides what view it wants to take in relation to the amendment, it must carefully consider the views of those bodies. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that this is a very important decision.

Baroness Blatch: First, is the Minister aware that not one of the voluntary organisations that he has named consulted its members in relation to this Bill? My family are contributors to the NSPCC and when we got in touch with that organisation, apart from being treated rather shabbily on the telephone, it said that the decision was that of the board, exclusive of the membership.
	Secondly, is the Minister aware that Barnardo's, in writing to my noble friend Lady Seccombe, who had referred to the fact that the Bill not only lowered the age of consent for boys but also lowered it to allow buggery against girls at the age of 16, said:
	"What I can say is that Barnardo's has not been aware that young women would be affected in the way you point out, and I would be grateful if you could let me know which Clause of the Bill you are referring to".
	Not only has that organisation given an opinion without consulting its members or its contributors, but it has also misunderstood the Bill.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not in a position to describe the process of consultation that those bodies went through, but I have little doubt that in expressing their views to Parliament in a matter of great significance, they gave their bona fide views as to what was in the best interests of children whom they are designed to protect. Maybe they could have had a better consultation process, but I am quite sure that that was their view according to their experience.

Lord Northbourne: Can the Minister confirm that all those organisations have been consulted on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and not on the principle of reducing the age of consent on which we all agree?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: According to the piece of paper that I have seen from those organisations, they have commented on the amendment of the noble Baroness; for example, the NSPCC have set out in detail why it is keen to reject the amendment. My belief is that the vast majority of them have been consulted on that, although no doubt the noble Baroness can tell the Committee whether she consulted any of them before putting forward her amendment.

Lord Waddington: We must be clear about this. When I came into the House today I received the briefing from the organisation to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has referred, and there is no specific reference to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I can read from a communication from the NSPCC:
	"The amendments to Clause 1 of the Bill by Baroness Young and Baroness Seccombe would create two different ages of consent--an age of consent at 18 for anal intercourse, whether homosexual or heterosexual, and an age of consent at 16 for all other homosexual or heterosexual sexual relations".
	That is what they are considering. At the end it says:
	"The NSPCC therefore rejects these amendments. We ask Peers to support the new offence of abuse of trust as currently drafted in the Bill. The NSPCC supports the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill. We support the equalisation of the age of consent at 16".
	I am told by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General that that is dated today. So I believe that the NSPCC considered it in detail and gave detailed arguments as to why it rejects the amendment.
	I put before the Committee the point that those organisations, all of whom are concerned with the welfare of children and all of whom would put their bona fide views to the Committee, take the view that this is not a sensible amendment. I ask noble Lords to take that into account when they make up their minds in relation to these amendments.
	Perhaps I can deal with the point about Scotland. Sodomy is a common law offence in Scotland and it is defined as buggery of one man by another. There is no heterosexual equivalent. In Scotland, having anal intercourse with a consenting adult woman--for example, over the age of 16--is not an offence. To change that situation would require a new definition of sodomy to be introduced into Scottish law. It is far from clear whether the amendment does that, but a further important issue that we have not touched on is that that would be a substantive change to the criminal law in Scotland which goes beyond the age change at present in the Bill. That is a devolved matter and, therefore, it is something on which the Scottish Parliament should properly decide and legislate.
	As Members of the Committee know, the Scottish Parliament supports the present proposals in the Bill. It endorses them by a large majority and asks Westminster to enact them for Scotland on its behalf. However, it did not give its agreement to the creation of a wholly new offence such as the one proposed, which criminalises practices which are currently lawful in Scotland.
	I ask Members of the Committee to reject Amendment No. 1 and the consequential amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, first, on the principle of equality and, secondly, because far from providing the protection for children which the noble Baroness claims they will, many people involved in the process feel that they will have the reverse effect. I therefore invite the Committee to reject the amendment.

Baroness Young: My Lords, first, I thank all those who supported me this afternoon. If I do not mention everybody by name, it is not that I do not greatly appreciate all that they said; it is that time will not allow. We have had a good and fair debate. Perhaps I can add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and say how much I appreciated his comments.
	Basically, two main issues arose in this debate and I turn to those before addressing the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. The first issue is obviously an important one. A dispute arose between my noble friend Lord McColl, who made an extremely important speech on the medical dangers of anal intercourse--the statistics he gave on smoking and anal sex and the shortening of young people's lives as a consequence of those activities should be remembered by us all--and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, whom I have known for years as a neighbour and friend in Oxford and who clearly does not support my amendment today.
	I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that the BMA is mistaken in thinking that, by lowering the age of consent to 16, it will provide better advice and safer sex for young people. The evidence, which is what we are considering, indicated that when the age of consent was lowered from 18 the amount of infections increased. That suggests that lowering the age of consent will not help and I have not the slightest reason for thinking that if the age of consent is lowered to 16, fewer infections will occur. The BMA should recognise that.
	The BMA says that anal intercourse is such a risky activity from the medical point of view that the age of consent should be lowered from 18 to 16 in order for young men to seek better safe sex advice. But the amount of advice already available is enormous. One only needs to look at commonly-accepted publications such as the one I hold in my hand, in which at least eight organisations are listed which can be contacted by telephone, to realise that it is a fallacy to think that young people cannot readily obtain advice.
	As one would expect from a lawyer, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked an important question of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, when he asked what a court would decide. Following on from the Gillick case, it is apparent that a doctor would not be sued for giving professional advice to a young person under 18 who asked for it. So the noble Lord's argument in that regard does not hold up.
	The second argument advanced came from the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who asked me straight out: what is the point of introducing my amendments because they are unenforceable? I am sure that the noble Viscount has studied this matter as closely as myself. He will recognise that the law at the moment is that heterosexuals can commit sexual acts at 16 but must wait until they are 18 to commit buggery. What I am proposing is no different in principle. The question of enforceability therefore does not arise any more under my amendments than under the law as it stands at present.
	Perhaps I can comment once again on equality. My colleagues and myself thought hard and long about this point and made a genuine effort to meet some of the arguments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will know as well as I--it was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Davies of Coity--that all sorts of age limits exist for different activities such as smoking, drinking, driving and probably for signing a contract for a bedsitting room, though I am not sure what age that is. They are all accepted. Why we should feel that we have to accept the narrowly defined terms of equality put forward by the Government I simply do not know.
	But there is a profound difference between heterosexual sex and anal sex which I must underline. One is an extremely dangerous activity; the other involves dangers, but not in the serious medical sense to which reference has been made. Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in reading out the section from the Wolfenden report, accurately summed up the arguments on the age of consent being 18.
	Finally, I turn to the charities. I have not heard from the NSPCC. None of the charities write to me on these issues. I have offered to see them but they never wish to discuss it. I am not sure why. I sometimes think that they are a little uncertain about discussing the issue with someone who has strongly-held opinions. Charities do many good works. But they are not always right and this argument does contain a moral aspect.
	I have said it before and I repeat: I speak as a Christian. In all our debates there has been a great feeling among the Christians, among the Moslems in this Chamber, among the Sikhs, the Jews and the Hindus of what we believe is right and wrong. If charities thought about the views of their founders, they too would look at that aspect of this whole debate.
	So I come back to the amendments before us. We are fighting to protect children from dangerous activities which could damage their health. I hope that my amendment receives support and I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 205; Not-Contents, 144.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Young: moved Amendment No. 2:
	After Clause 1, insert the following new clause--

SODOMY: SCOTLAND

(" . In the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, after section 13 there shall be inserted--
	"Sodomy with a member of the opposite sex.
	13A--(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, it shall be an offence to commit or to be party to the commission of, or to procure or attempt to procure the commission of an act of sodomy with a member of the opposite sex--
	(a) otherwise than in private;
	(b) without the consent of both parties to the act; or
	(c) with a person under the age of eighteen years.
	(2) A person under the age of eighteen does not commit an offence under subsection (1) above if he or she commits, or is party to the commission of, an act of sodomy with a person who has attained that age.
	(3) A person who is suffering from mental deficiency which is of such a nature or degree that he or she is incapable of living an independent life or of guarding himself or herself against serious exploitation cannot in law give any consent which, by virtue of subsection (1) above, would prevent an act of sodomy from being an offence; but a person shall not be convicted on account of the incapacity of such a person to consent, of an offence consisting of such an act if he or she proves that he or she did not know and had no reason to suspect that person to be suffering from such mental deficiency.
	(4) A person who commits or is party to the commission of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both and on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum (within the meaning of section 225(8) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995).
	(5) It shall be a defence to a charge of committing or to being a party to the commission of, or to procuring or attempting to procure the commission of an act of sodomy under subsection (1) above that the person so charged being under the age of 24 years who had not previously been charged with a like offence, had reasonable cause to believe that the other person was of or over the age of 18 years."").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Defences available to persons who are under age]:

Baroness Young: moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 16:
	Page 2, line 11, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("eighteen").
	Page 2, line 22, leave out (""a homosexual act"") and insert (""an act of buggery in private with another man"").
	Page 2, line 25, leave out ("a homosexual act") and insert ("an act of buggery with another man or commission of an act of buggery").
	Page 2, line 26, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("eighteen").
	Page 2, line 27, at end insert--
	("(3A) In subsection (1A) of section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (as inserted by section 1)--
	(a) the words from "an act of gross indecency" to the end shall become paragraph (a); and
	(b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the words, "and
	(b) an act of gross indecency with another man or commission of an act of gross indecency by any person shall not be an offence if he is under the age of sixteen and the other party has attained that age.".").
	Page 2, line 29, leave out second ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
	Page 2, line 30, leave out ("(8A)") and insert ("(8B)").
	Page 2, line 30, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("eighteen").
	Page 2, line 32, leave out ("a homosexual act") and insert ("an act of sodomy").
	Page 2, line 33, at end insert--
	("(8C) A person under the age of sixteen years does not commit an offence under subsection (5A)(a) or (c) above if he commits or is party to the commission of an act of gross indecency or shameless indecency with a person who has attained that age.").
	Page 2, line 36, leave out (""a homosexual act"") and insert (""an act of buggery in private by a man with another man"").
	Page 2, line 39, leave out ("a homosexual act by any person") and insert ("an act of buggery by a man with another man or commission of an act of buggery by a man with another man").
	Page 2, line 40, leave out ("seventeen") and insert ("eighteen").
	Page 2, line 41, at end insert--
	("(6) In paragraph (1A) of Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (as inserted by section 1)--
	(a) the words from "an act of gross indecency" to the end shall become paragraph (a); and
	(b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the words "and
	(b) an act of gross indecency or commission of an act of gross indecency by any person shall not be an offence if he is under the age of seventeen and the other party has attained that age.".").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Abuse of position of trust]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 3, line 2, at end insert (", including preparing such a person to engage in sexual activity with him at a later stage,").

Baroness Blatch: In moving Amendment No. 17, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36 and 44.
	These amendments deal with extending the measures in this Bill to others in a position of trust. They also include the preparation or, as I understand it is known in the trade, grooming of a young person for sexual purposes. It is worth remembering why the abuse of trust provision was put into this Bill in the first place. Certain Members on the Government Benches in another place were unhappy and uneasy about lowering the age of consent. They brokered with the Home Secretary the abuse of trust clause. They, like us, felt that if the age of consent was to be lowered, some young people would be in a particularly vulnerable position and some people who held positions of trust over children ought to be subject to the measures in this Bill.
	Amendment No. 17 deals with preparing a young person for later sexual activity. Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 34, 35 and 36 are consequential. Amendment No. 44 defines social care workers, and there are many references to the different types of people who are involved and who are to be included in the additional categories.
	Those of us who support these amendments were heavily influenced by the findings of the Waterhouse report. For those who have read it, the report makes chilling reading. For anyone who cares about the protection of children, it makes particularly chilling reading. The abuse of trust offence will operate only where there is a continuing professional relationship between the child and the abuser. For example, when a child leaves a home, he is no longer protected from those who were his carers. An abuser may with impunity groom a child for abuse, so long as that person refrains from sexual activity until after the child leaves his care. Another example would be that of a school teacher who "romances" a pupil during the final term at school but says that they must wait until the pupil is 16 and has left the school before having sex. That would also apply when a child leaves a detention centre.
	Care workers understand the care system. They also understand how vulnerable young people can be manipulated. That is precisely what happened with the unscrupulous care workers named in the Waterhouse report. They groomed young people for abuse, including abuse after the young person had left care. The Waterhouse report concluded that Reginald "Gary" Cooke had ready access to children in residential care in the Wrexham area. This is significant, since Cooke was employed as a care worker for only a little more than a year. There was no ongoing professional relationship, yet he still had access. One of the buggery victims in respect of whom Cooke was convicted in 1987 was 18 years old and not in care at the time of the offence. The victim had earlier been in care at Bersham Hall, when he first met Cooke. G, referred to in the report, was abused by Jacqueline Thomas, a care worker at the children's home at which he was resident, but it was not until G was 16, and had gone to live in another home, that she had full sexual intercourse with him.
	I refer to something that I said in the previous debate. We are talking about the most vulnerable young people who seek affection and go to great lengths to be wanted and loved by other people. The tragedy of the cases about which I am now speaking is that that precious trust was breached by the very people to whom these young people turned for advice. John Allen was a chief executive of the Bryn Alyn homes. Properties owned by him were used,
	"to house young men who had been discharged from care".
	The professional relationship no longer existed, but we all know that the abuse went on.
	C, referred to in the report, alleged that Allen abused him in Bryntirion Hall, when aged 16, and subsequently after he had left, right up to the age of 23 and 24. Allen also made many attempts to abuse D, who was aged 16 when he entered Bryn Alyn. Another attempt was made many years later after he had left the home. The report makes clear its misgivings about the way in which Allen was able to continue his abuse of young people who had left care. I quote again from the report:
	"It is a cause for great concern also that his influence extended for some beyond the period of their residence in care with the Community to later years when they should have been establishing themselves in normal patterns of life".
	Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 refer to absconders. The Waterhouse report found that absconding was very common. In the case of local authority care or other accommodation, it is arguable that a child who is absconding is not protected, since he is no longer "resident" at the home, as the wording of the Bill requires. This is a legal loophole, which abusers could exploit. I hope that the Government, who are genuinely concerned about this part of the Bill, will allow this loophole to be plugged by these amendments.
	An abuser may persuade a child to run away from the home at which he works to stay with a friend. He may then be able to take sexual advantage of him without committing this offence. If he was prosecuted, he could argue, in the case of residential care, that the child was no longer resident at the home when the sexual activity took place, which would then make it legal. Many of the abused children referred to in the Waterhouse report ran away from the children's homes. Sometimes they stayed with the very paedophiles who were abusing them. Often the abusers 'farmed out' the children, to be abused by other known paedophiles. One of the most heart-rending passages of the Waterhouse report that affected me concerned three young brothers who went to the person in charge of the home to plead for help, and they were abused by the very person from whom they sought help. I cannot think of a worse breach of trust by an adult in that situation.
	It is a well established fact--and I now refer to Amendment No. 36, which refers to youth groups--that paedophiles can seek to obtain positions of responsibility in youth organisations where they can come into contact with children. The notorious paedophile, Reginald "Gary" Cooke, was employed as a care worker for a relatively short time. He worked for only two weeks in Bersham Hall, probably in or about 1972. He was later employed for over a year by the Bryn Alyn Community in two children's homes. Later still, he was the warden of a probation hostel for six months. Most of the boys whom Cooke abused were not actually in care at the time. Those who were in care tended to have met Cooke outside the home. One boy was in care from April 1973, when he was aged 16, until the end of 1974. His evidence was that he was abused by Cooke after a friendship developed between them when he attended a youth club. Cooke was a team leader in the youth club. The abuse continued until the boy told Cooke that he did not want it any more. He argued that Cooke--and I quote from the report--"took advantage of him when he was in need of friendship". When Cooke was an instructor in the Army Cadets he met boy B who claimed that he had been abused "on about half a dozen occasions" before he went into care. The years of abuse during which Cooke manipulated B into giving consent all started because of the relationship which began in a youth club.
	Amendment No. 30 covers social workers who work with children outside children's homes. Jacqueline Thomas, to whom I have already referred, was convicted of abusing a 16 year-old boy called S. The police investigation followed allegations made by G following his return from Christmas leave. G alleged that on Christmas Eve he and S had stayed at Thomas's flat. David Gillison, a social worker with Clywd County Council, was also there and group sexual activity took place. Gillison was later convicted of two charges of gross indecency with G. If the abuse of trust provisions had been in force at that time Thomas could have been convicted under them but her accomplice Gillison could not since he was not the social worker directly responsible for G or S. A care worker from one home can abuse children from another without committing an abuse of trust offence. This is a straightforward loophole in the proposed legislation. I am aware that the Home Secretary is concerned about this matter, and I hope that he will accept this amendment. If Thomas had introduced the boys to Gillison and refrained from taking part in sexual activity she would not have been committing an abuse of trust offence. Young people were, therefore, farmed out by one paedophile to others who abused them.
	It is difficult to draft an offence which would cover that type abuse without it being ridiculed as too wide, and I have no doubt there will be an attempt to do that tonight. However, it is possible to extend the reach of the offence to cover any contact between a social worker and a young person in a professional setting. Those who leave care may still be in regular contact with social workers in a professional setting. We have only just passed an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. In that one is talking about the use of probation hostels for people whose convictions are spent. Therefore, one is aware that professionals have contact with young people in these situations.
	Amendments Nos. 30 and 44 cover social workers in all their dealings with young people, not just in children's homes. The amendments protect young people only from social workers who have direct professional dealings with them. They also give effect to recommendation 32 of the Home Office review of sexual offences in respect of care staff in paid posts. As to that, my noble friend Lady Young has gone to enormous lengths to ensure that the amendments tabled today are consistent with the recommendations of that review. I have no doubt that arguments will be found to counter these amendments. However, the most vulnerable children should look to Parliament for protection, and these amendments aim to do just that. I beg to move.

Lord Elton: In view of the enormous increase in the number of, and support for, mentors, many of whom are provided by the voluntary sector--for example, the DIVERT Trust, in which I declare an interest as its president--does my noble friend believe that this amendment embraces that activity, which should be covered? I am not sure that the amendment extends to that field.

Baroness Blatch: My noble friend's point is the subject of another amendment. There is a later group of amendments which refers to those in education. I wish to cover the position of mentors who are a group of people who have particular one-to-one relationships with very vulnerable people in our schools.

Lord Elton: I draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that mentors act not only in the field of education but in other areas. However, I am grateful for that information.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I, too, have noted the tragic reports about children in care and have been horrified by what I have seen and read. That was brought into sharper focus for me because 10 years ago I purchased a house which formerly had been a care home. Over the course of 18 months my family and I turned that building back into a family house. When one buys a house one also buys its history. In the years since we have had visits from people who have come back to see the place where they were in care. They have extraordinary stories to tell, most of which are happy ones. The stories are of teachers who have devoted their lives to mending, helping and encouraging damaged young people from brutalised backgrounds who have had no love and affection at any time. For many of them the time spent in that home was the happiest in their short and unhappy lives. We have also heard darker stories of very vulnerable young people who from time to time have attracted the attentions of predatory staff at the home. I can think of nothing more terrifying and shattering for a young person than to be removed from a dysfunctional and brutalised home, perhaps where there has been alcohol abuse and a lack of money and opportunity, to what he or she hopes will be a sanctuary, only to be taken advantage of by the people with whom he or she has been placed in trust.
	Over the past 10 years I have heard enough of such cases to make me feel very concerned about it. Therefore, we owe it to these unfortunate young people to ensure, if possible, that it never happens again. We must offer them every possible protection. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to accept my noble friend's amendments, which are designed to strengthen the protection that is afforded to these young people.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful for the Committee's contributions, particularly the last one. I declare an interest as a former trustee of the NSPCC and chairman of the national commission of inquiry into the prevention of abuse against children. I also declared earlier--I should repeat it--that I had a connection with the Waterhouse inquiry. That inquiry is a continuing reproach to us all. When reading it we need to bear in mind that the law was not without effective sanction, although not on every occasion and in all circumstances. For example, the most persistent offender in Bryn Alyn was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. Norris who was at Bryn Estyn was sentenced to a long period of imprisonment. A large number of successful prosecutions were brought against men and women--mainly men--for the abuse of children in care. One must carefully bear in mind that the criminal law is there to provide serious criminal justice sanctions against those who abuse children.
	On an earlier occasion I invited the Committee not to cast out the Bill because it would leave children in the continuing limbo of having no protection under the criminal law. I suggested to the Committee that the offence of abuse of trust was a gap in the law. Members took their own view and, therefore, there is still no mechanism in law, until this Bill is passed, to deal with the offences of abuse of trust. I simply recite history without reproaching anyone. We must all make our decisions, appropriate or not as they may be. Therefore, we are not talking about the sexual abuse of children which, rightly so, remains a criminal offence.
	It is helpful to have in mind the Home Office consultative document about setting boundaries, to which the noble Baroness referred. The noble Baroness referred to recommendation 32. There are recommendations that there should be criminal sanctions in respect of breaches of relationship of care. They go much wider than the matters about which we are speaking today. For example, they include sexual relations between doctors and their patients and therapists and their clients.
	Perhaps I may make one plea--for the last time I hope in this context. We really must get the whole of the law of sexual offences right. The consultative period extends until March of next year. I know the noble Baroness has said that that is a long time. That is a price worth paying to get the matter right. The one thing that all of us who have anything to do with this area of child protection or criminal justice can agree on is that the law is incoherent and ineffective. It is ineffective precisely because of its incoherence.
	I have spent a moment or two on that because I know the seriousness with which the Committee views these matters. This is a matter that my right honourable friend Mr Alun Michael was working on for a long time when he was in charge of these matters at the Home Office. I was working with him and the Home Secretary at that time. This is not just a response to questions raised in another place in the context of the Bill.
	We tried to focus on four principles, which I hope commend themselves as principles of utility and protection. First, the younger individual should be particularly vulnerable, as a result of personal circumstance such as would be the case with a young person in care. Secondly, the younger individual should be particularly vulnerable as a result of the situation he or she is in, such as in detention or residential care. We do not need to overlook those who are in young offender institutions. We must not simply limit our minds to what Sir Ronald Waterhouse was examining. One young offender was killed recently. A young white racist cellmate killed his ethnic minority cellmate in the most appalling circumstances. We need to bear that in mind as well.
	Thirdly, the older individual should be in a position of particular influence; and the relationship of trust should be particularly strong. This is true of teachers of students in full-time education. Fourthly--this is important--the younger party should not have easy access to other adults for advice or countervailing influence. That is true of course for many situations of residential care.
	The fact is--this is what Sir Ronald demonstrated to our continuing shame--that many people leave residential care deeply wounded and bruised. They are fragile when they go in, and, I am sorry to say--I do not think I exaggerate--they are irremediably wounded when they come out. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and I have shared the experience of visiting prisons. Neither of us is a qualified psychiatrist, but when we talk to prisoners--the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will have had the same experience--without being psychiatrists, we can tell, nine times out of 10, which one of those prisoners, now adult, was formerly a child in care.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am sure the noble and learned Lord will agree that having seen and read many reports, and through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board when we have been compensating the victims of those who have been abused in institutions, one is shaken by the effect that it has had on the whole of their lives. As the noble and learned Lord said, they come out badly scarred.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely agree. That is why we need to focus with great care on what will be effective. There are many people in positions of authority who abuse younger people. I am not saying this in any contentious way, but we know--alas--that many in the Roman Catholic priesthood have recently been found guilty of quite serious abuse. I am not saying this intending to diminish any of the concerns of the noble Baroness. I was grateful for the opportunity I had to discuss these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Blatch. We are trying to focus on the areas where the law can be effective, bearing in mind that this is in the overall context of the Home Office review.
	I turn to the amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke of the first amendment speaking about "grooming". Because of Clause 3(5)(b) of the Bill the amendment will provide that preparing a person to engage in sexual activity with him at a later stage will fall within the definition of sexual activity only if the preparatory acts are themselves,
	"sexual in all the circumstances".
	If the acts designed to prepare another for sexual intercourse are themselves,
	"sexual in all the circumstances",
	then they already fall within the definition of the Bill as it stands. If the preparatory acts are not,
	"sexual in all the circumstances",
	the drafting of the amendment will leave those offences still uncovered. Therefore, I hope I have expressed the general view that I have towards these matters. But I urge Members of the Committee, with the greatest of respect, to produce legislation that will actually work. I believe that the presently drafted Bill does that.
	We then come to a different category. That is amendments to add a fifth category.

Baroness Young: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. In that last remark is he saying that the Bill, as drafted, covers Amendment No. 17 moved by my noble friend Lady Blatch?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Clause 3(5)(b) provides that preparing a person to engage in sexual activity with him at a later stage will only fall within the definition of "sexual activity" if the preparatory acts are themselves sexual in all the circumstances. Therefore, what I am saying is that the Bill will catch some activity, but the amendment, as drafted, will not do the work that the noble Baroness wants it to do.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps I may return to the precise wording of my amendment. It is,
	"to engage in any other sexual activity"--
	which is the preamble--
	"with or directed towards such a person, including".
	It is only another aspect. It is another facet. It does not exclude the other acts which might indeed be sexual. The amendment says,
	"including preparing such a person to engage in sexual activity".
	So I am not sure that I agree with the noble and learned Lord's interpretation of my amendment.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I could be right and I could be wrong. But I believe that the summary and conclusion by way of definition of the legal consequence, first, of the Bill and, secondly, of the amendment, is correct.
	I turn now to the fifth category. Our offence is to deal with the abuses of a position of trust where a young person is especially vulnerable. I recognise that this is a matter of judgment. When one looks at Sir Ronald's report, it is not unreasonable to describe that collection of childcare establishments as our equivalent of the gulag archipelago. But no one wanted to know about the archipelago and no one recognised that it was a gulag, in other words, young children away from effective remedy.
	I believe that qualitatively--I put this as a serious point which, I hope, may resonate with the Committee--the situation is different. I agree with what the noble Lord was saying. If one is abused but can go home at the end of the day that is different to that feeling of utter abandonment which we know perfectly well is what typifies those in residential care homes. What is done to people who can go home at the end of the day is wrong, but I believe that it is different in consequence and practical outcome to those people in full-time care.
	Our offences are particularly designed to try to deal with the mischief which I have tried to identify. In the situations that we set out, the older person will be treated as being in a position of trust if he or she "looks after" the young person; that is, regular involvement in caring for, training, supervising or being in charge of the young person. Under the proposed amendments, a member of staff at one of the institutions I have mentioned could be liable even if he or she were not regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in charge of the young person. In other words, the liability in law would arise because that person worked at the institution and had engaged in sexual activity with the young person, and not because he or she had been in that caring relationship of trust.
	I recognise that this is a matter sometimes of quite fine judgment but I suggest that that is different. After all, a member of staff in one of these institutions could be 18 and the person with whom he had sexual activity could be 16 or 17. In that situation there would be no true relationship of coercive trust. That really is the point. What matters is the coercion of circumstance and power, not the coercion of simply being a member of staff. We need to bear in mind that many acts would in any event be caught by the criminal law. If there is no consent, the law protects. We have to bear that in mind. We believe that the liability should be based on the abuse of the relationship of trust.
	As far as concerns social care workers, in order for the older person to be treated as in a "position of trust" a condition is that he or she "looks after" the young person. I think that we have that balance right. "Looks after" is defined in the way that I suggested a few moments ago. Many of those who could be classified as "social care workers" would already be caught by the provisions of the Bill; for example, those regularly caring for someone under 18 in a children's home or residential care home. But not all those who could be called "social care workers" should be caught. I repeat: this is a matter of judgment. We believe that one should focus on the real mischief that was identified by Sir Ronald. The real vice comes because there is an element of the young person being in the care of someone. That young person's consent becomes meaningless because the consent, notionally, is overborne by the fact, first, of the relationship and the breach of trust; and, secondly, because the young person has no one else to whom to turn.
	If a social worker simply visits a young person of 16 or 17 resident at their own home and a sexual relationship develops, we believe that that should be dealt with by the General Social Care Council in England or the Care Council for Wales under the Care Standards Act 2000.
	Social services inspectors are caught by the amendments. I know that that is done for good motive, but they should not be caught simply because they are inspectors. They should be caught if they abuse any position of trust with a young person. Not all social services inspectors would be in that category. I say as carefully as I may that we should not categorise all behaviour of which we disapprove with this kind of wickedness and the true desperation that is brought about by the illustrations in the Waterhouse report.
	The question of youth groups may conveniently tip over into the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about mentors. The noble Lord rightly pointed out that mentors may be of a very wide category indeed. I think again that one is trying to attack here the vice of abuse of trust. I hope the noble Lord will agree with me on the basis of our general experience that not all mentors will be in that situation.
	Perhaps I may reassure the Committee. I do not believe that the case is made out at the present time for the inclusion of youth groups in the scope of the new offence, but I am happy to say that we will keep the matter under review. I ask the Committee to cast its eye over Clause 4(1) of the Bill. It states that,
	"if any of the four conditions set out below, or"--
	these are the important words from the point of view of the concern and question of the noble Lord, Lord Elton--
	"any condition specified in an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument is fulfilled".
	The door is held wide open so that if we are further informed by particular experience the Secretary of State has that power.
	I was not quite able to understand--it is my fault--the thinking behind Amendments Nos. 21 and 22. If one adds "normally" as is proposed in Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, the noble Baroness will produce an outcome contrary to that for which she is looking. I find it difficult that the amendment seeks to restrict the protection of children to those who are normally resident in a home as opposed to those who may on some occasions reside in such a place. I know from my own experience in the Waterhouse context that some very difficult children could not be dealt with in one home and sometimes they resided in homes for quite a short period of time. If one adds "normally" one will produce the unintended consequence that the protection may well be removed. I do not believe that that is what the noble Baroness wants. It may be that I have misunderstood the thrust of the amendment. But that is how I construe it.
	I know that I have been a little while. I do not apologise because the questions are quite serious.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord because I entered the Chamber in the middle of his remarks. Over the past 12 months and more, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has seen many of these cases. They are, as the noble and learned Lord stated, disturbing. I agree with him that the most serious point of all is that the young people are abused in a home where they have been required to go by the order of a court. We have put them there for their care and protection and those who are supposed to be protecting them have themselves abused them.
	The other serious issue--I know this from the cases that I have seen--is that when they complained their complaints were not listened to and were often totally ignored. They were then told to go back and carry on as before. I accept the strength of the noble and learned Lord's argument, but is he saying that because it is vital that there should be protection in that area one should not look at these other areas as well; or is he saying that it is the intention of the Government, through the power in the following clause, to widen it to other areas which may not have the same individual features as those who are in charge of a community home but who, nevertheless, are in a position of trust over the children at the time that they are in their care?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. Perhaps I may make two points. Neither of them is intended to be a forensic or debating point. The first point reinforces the general case that I was making. When the noble Lord served with such distinction on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, as it formerly was, that meant that the criminal law had sanctions. The noble Lord's authority could not have compensated without a criminal offence having been committed. That is not a full answer but it is a distinct answer; and it is an important answer from the public's point of view--that our law is not without weapon and strength.
	As to the noble Lord's second question, I do not believe that we have come to a perfect solution and I do not believe that we ever can do. In private discussions I have been asked whether we should have a schedule or a list. We all know the difficulties of schedules or lists. The devious who wish to abuse children are quite skilful in avoiding definitions in schedules or lists. What I can say on behalf of the Home Secretary is that he has a distinct power in Clause 4(1):
	"any condition specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
	That is additional to the four conditions set out at the end of page 3. I am grateful for the intervention and I hope that I have dealt with it appropriately.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I should like to take up two points from among those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and by the Minister. The first point may assist the Minister, while the second seeks to establish whether he needs to keep on making the distinction around the area of the fifth condition.
	I was attracted to Amendment No. 17, but I could see the point being made by the Minister in his response. However, his argument might have been strengthened if he had referred to Clause 3(5)(a) rather than only to 3(5)(b). Subsection (5)(a) makes exactly the distinction that the Minister intended, thus making the point that it would behard to bring in "grooming"--such as sharing a box of chocolates or a new pair of trainers--within the meaning of the Act because that would covered by the words,
	"knowledge of the intentions, motives or feelings".
	The Minister has persuaded me, but only by reference to Clause 3(5)(a) rather than 3(5)(b), that, in the end, Amendment No. 17--which I regarded as worthwhile--would not stand.
	Perhaps I may go on to ask why the Minister and the Government, while they are very properly determined to work at the questions concerning young people in care--in the broadest sense--are apparently so unwilling to move on to the areas covered by these amendments? Those concern the "family" in the widest sense, voluntary organisations--including churches and religious organisations, which have quite properly been included in Amendment No. 26. The Minister referred to Clause 4(1) which makes provision for the Secretary of State to bring in by statutory instrument other conditions laid down in the Bill. However, why should he be determined to do that only later? He seems reluctant to take action at this point. I feel that there is only too wretchedly ample evidence that terrible things have happened to children and young people in care. Thus his distinction between those wholly in the care ofothers and those only partly in such care, with the chance to go home, does not seem to me to be a distinction of the power, clarity and necessity that the Minister obviously wishes the Committee to accept.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may deal with those points without discourtesy. Amendment No. 26 is not included in this grouping. For appropriate reasons, it has been tabled separately and we shall debate it in due course.
	Although I am a confirmed and baptised member of the Church in Wales, I am always happy to accept guidance from a sister Church. The right reverend Prelate is quite right: one cannot found criminal law on the basis of intent. However, I believe that once upon a time, in ancient China, there was an offence called the "possession of dangerous thoughts".

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for this important debate. Certainly, given the tone of the noble and learned Lord's reply, mutual concerns have been expressed on this issue.
	Perhaps I may deal first with the word "normally". I am concerned that a young person is afforded protection only if they are accommodated and cared for in an institution. If they happen to be farmed out temporarily, then they will lose the protection. The intention behind the use of the word "normally" was to ensure that if a young person is normally resident in one home, but for the purposes of the offence happened to be sent off--as in the case of the incidents in Wales--to a paedophile ring operating in a bungalow, then they will still receive the protection of the law. If the noble and learned Lord can point out in what way this is the wrong word to use, then I shall be prepared not to press those two amendments, although I believe that that would leave in place a rather rigid interpretation of the protection; namely, that someone must at all times be accommodated and cared for within one institution.
	We shall not oppose the abuse of trust clause as it stands. Our wish and intention is to improve and to strengthen it. The noble and learned Lord referred to the Bryn Alyn cases. However, I should point out that many of the abusers mentioned in the Waterhouse report were convicted of an "age of consent" offence--buggery and/or gross indecency. The protection as regards gross indecency will be removed under the present Bill if the Government accept that buggery should remain at 18. However, the advantage of an age of consent offence is that the prosecutor has to prove only that the action took place; thus there is no need to consider whether consent was or was not withheld.
	The noble and learned Lord has argued that a review is currently being undertaken. It will consult until next spring and it may be that further legislation will be required. However, I do not think that anything in these amendments would preclude further strengthening of the Bill. Indeed, we would welcome that. We hope that a further Bill will be announced in the forthcoming gracious Speech.
	If consent is not an issue, then an offence will have been committed. I believe that these are young people who are in a very vulnerable position. We know that the kind of people who abuse children can be extremely manipulative and do manage to find their way into positions as mentors, advisers and care workers. Given the importance of these amendments, and the fact that they would not preclude any further legislation to strengthen the law in this area, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 139; Not-Contents, 124.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 3, line 19, at end insert--
	("(3A) Where an allegation has been made that a person has committed an offence under this section and the person is a teacher at an educational institution, it shall be unlawful to publish or broadcast that person's name or address or a still or moving picture of him before he is charged with the offence.").

Baroness Blatch: In moving Amendment No. 18 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 29, 40, 42 and 43.
	Morale among teachers is not very high at the moment; they have a number of concerns. One particular black cloud hanging over the profession is the increasing number of vexatious complaints made against them. The NASUWT has carried out a great deal of work talking with teachers, holding conferences with teachers, collating statistics and speaking with government about the plight of teachers, whose careers and lives very often are completely shattered by a vexatious complaint, in particular one of a sexual nature.
	I shall not bore the Committee with too many statistics, but in the past decade 1,199 allegations have been made. A massive 887 of those allegations have not been proceeded with and no further action has been taken. Only 136 of the 1,199 cases appeared in court; in 73 cases there was no further action and some 52 cases of the 1,199 ended in a conviction.
	A number of points need to be made at the outset. Given the debate we have just had, it is important that anyone who abuses children is brought to justice and that the courts deal with them. But we know that there are particular problems in the teaching profession. "Streetwise" is a term that I have often heard used. Many young people are very streetwise. They are learning fast that to compromise a teacher by making such an allegation can blight the life of that teacher. I have spoken with members of the NASUWT and the National Association of Head Teachers. They concur that once an allegation has been made and publicity has been given to the suspension of the teacher concerned, which is automatic following an allegation, the life of that teacher is made impossible.
	The situation is made even more difficult when the allegation is dropped simply because someone has had his or her fun and does not want to take the matter further, especially when the police or social services become involved. That places the teacher in the most awful position. The situation gives rise to the response that "there is no smoke without fire" and to a feeling of unease among parents. But worst of all, the teacher has not been a position to prove his or her innocence, so there remains a very real cloud over his or her life.
	There is a further, practical problem. There is a time gap of many weeks, even months, between an allegation being made, automatic immediate suspension and the case being followed up by means of informal and later formal inquiries. Cases have been known to take even longer. There is a period when the teacher concerned, his or her family, the parents of the children concerned and everyone who is touched by such an allegation live in a state of anxiety. Many of those involved are made ill; some even turn to suicide. So there is a real problem. I am referring only to statistics from one teachers' union. I have not included statistics from the Secondary Heads Association, the National Association of Head Teachers or the National Union of Teachers. The figures that I am using are only a part of the picture.
	Some Members of the Committee may have read of a case reported in Saturday's edition of the Daily Mail. It highlighted the vulnerability of teachers who are falsely accused of wrongdoing. It involved seven boys who were suspended from school following the discovery of drugs. Two of the boys sought revenge on the teacher and head teacher involved. One accused the teacher of supplying the drugs in the first place; the other boy accused the head teacher of sexually abusing him four years previously. The case has been a long time coming to fruition in court. The teacher and the head teacher were cleared, but not before experiencing a great deal of anxiety. Another point made by the NASUWT is that the career of teachers involved in such cases is so blighted by the effects of malicious or vexatious allegations that almost none of those involved return to teaching.
	I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will refer to the legal context, and I shall be interested to hear his response. One argument may be that the amendment will not be workable. I see no reason why it should not be. Under Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the identity of the young person is suppressed. This currently happens in cases where teachers are accused of physical or sexual abuse of pupils. The courts have a procedure to publicise that an order has been made under the 1933 Act to ensure that journalists are aware that they cannot publish the child's name. A similar mechanism is used in rape cases. If the amendment were to be accepted, such a procedure could also be applied to protect the identity of an accused.
	It is possible to make an application under the Human Rights Act to the effect that the publication of a person's name is a breach of privacy under Article 8 dealing with the right to privacy and family life. It could be argued that the article applies because a person's career and the health and safety of his or her partner and children would be jeopardised by publicity. However, in the absence of an amendment such as this, the courts are required to balance the provisions of Article 8 with those of Article 10, dealing with the right to freedom of expression--in this case, for the press. It could, therefore, be argued that the Human Rights Act has strengthened the case for the amendment.
	There is some concern that my amendment applies only to teachers. I hope that that will not be regarded as a criticism. If, in the mind of the Government and/or the noble and learned Lord, that is considered to be a flaw, other categories can be added. I am making out the particular case for teachers.
	I cannot overstate the trauma for a teacher or head teacher who is subject to a malicious or vexatious allegation. We know that those types of allegations far outweigh the genuine ones which end in a conviction. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for discussing the amendment with me when it was first tabled. He will know that I took heed of some of the things that he said: the amendment would apply up to the point when a teacher was charged with an offence. That would catch most of the teachers in this situation--given that the rule in this country is that no one is charged unless there is a more than 50 per cent chance that the case would stand up in court. I beg to move.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have added my name to this amendment and am pleased to do so. If my noble and learned friend is unable to accept it, he and the Government really must do something about the unfairness to teachers--and in particular, but not exclusively, to male teachers. This problem continues to affect our education system.
	The noble Baroness mentioned an article in Saturday's edition of the Daily Mail referring to Mr Sudbury and Mr Easterbrook. Both were accused of sexually abusing children under their care. One was acquitted; the other case did not proceed because of lack of evidence. The point is that Mr Sudbury is so traumatised that he is not returning to teaching. Mr Easterbrook is returning to teaching. Both have been through absolute hell. We all know what hell it would be if we ourselves were accused of such an offence. It would affect us mentally, it would affect our family, it would affect our career and our relationships with our neighbours and friends. The matter is extremely serious. It is abominable and unacceptable that a person who is merely alleged to have committed what is a heinous crime should be put in this position and named.
	There are very serious consequences for the education system. Already we find that only 18 per cent of teachers in our primary schools are male. That is not good enough. Primary schools need at least a fair balance to ensure that children are taught in a satisfactory environment in which they can appreciate both "femaleness" and "maleness". We need male teachers.
	What is even worse is that this is now happening in secondary schools. The balance between male and female teachers is being upset. One reason--but not the only one--is that men are concerned, perhaps even frightened, that they may become involved in situations such as that in which Mr Sudbury and Mr Easterbrook became involved because of the viciousness of some pupils. The idea that young people are always innocent is quite absurd. Young people can be just as difficult as adults when it comes to getting out of trouble, or, indeed, taking revenge.
	If we are to retain male teachers in all our schools it is essential for the Government to do something about the situation. They can do so either by accepting this amendment or by bringing forward their own amendments. Alternatively, they could give us an assurance that government are concerned about this matter; that they believe that something needs to be done about it for the protection of teachers and for the future of teaching; and that they will bring forward proposals, which will be acceptable to Parliament, to the teaching profession and to the public generally.

Lord Northbourne: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has dealt at some length with most of what I intended to say. I shall not, therefore, repeat it, although I very much support everything that he said on the subject. However, I should like to make the point that this problem extends way beyond the teaching profession and includes not only the youth service but also all the mentoring initiatives that the Government are so laudably instituting. The chief social worker in the Stepney Children's Fund, of which I have the privilege to be chairman, said to me just the other day, "I'm really worried about this situation. This is the only crime for which you are assumed to be guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent". That is the kind of mood that exists in the youth service today in many places.

Earl Russell: I must admit to some sympathy for the objectives of Amendment No. 18. As a serving university teacher, I suppose I ought to declare an interest in that view. I have not yet been the subject of a false accusation, but I have a year and a half to go before retirement and one cannot be too careful. The use of the false accusation as a weapon of malice has been known to the law since before the limits of legal memory, which means that historians may take an interest in that evidence and lawyers may not.
	It is extremely difficult at one and the same time to have the necessary severity for dealing with genuine offences and the necessary sensitivity for the fact that some people who are accused of those offences are not guilty. We try, but none of us, I believe, always succeeds. However, there is a further difficulty now; namely, that we face the danger of trial by newspaper where the principles of natural justice do not apply quite as strictly as they do in the proceedings of a court. This is a matter that clearly needs attention.
	However, were the noble and learned Lord to say that the problem goes rather wider than the provision in this amendment, as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, just observed, I should pay attention to that point. Similarly, were the noble and learned Lord also to say that this matter is related to the problem of the working out of a relationship between the press and the Human Rights Act--a problem that has given rise to a large amount of wallpaper--I should also pay attention to that view. I hope, therefore, that the Government will seriously consider the matter. I look forward to hearing the response of the noble and learned Lord as to whether or not they will do so in the form suggested in these amendments.
	I should like to say a few words about some of the other amendments in this group. I have in mind Amendments Nos. 23 and 42, which propose the deletion of the expression "full-time", and Amendment No. 40, which seeks to delete the word "regularly". I understand the object of these amendments and it is a good one. But the question is: have we here arrived at a clear and workable situation? Normally when one has a provision to include the expression "part-time", one has a maximum number of hours that will qualify for inclusion as part-time. However, we have no such qualification here. I believe I understand why that is so. But are we moving into a situation that may be rather more far reaching than we really intend--for example, one where a single meeting, in which a relationship of trust may subsist for about an hour, is covered if the people concerned meet perhaps several months later and a relationship then develops after the relationship of trust is over? We need some boundaries as to how far this will extend. I look forward with interest to hearing what the noble and learned Lord has to say about that question.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised this important point. However, I should like to add my voice to those who have suggested that the amendment, as presently drawn, is rather narrow referring as it does to,
	"teacher at an educational institution".
	I have already wearied Members of the Committee with my practical, first-hand experience of a former care home. However, I have experience of this particular kind of case. The people at the home in question were not angels; indeed, they were very angry young people who would try almost anything to get revenge on society, which they held responsible for their plight. Most of the staff who looked after them were carers, not teachers, and, therefore, would not have the protection that I believe is proposed in this amendment. The vast majority of those carers were men and women who had devoted their lives to what was often a very thankless and unproductive task; namely, trying to mend the lives of those young people. If the Minister accepts the thrust of what we are now proposing, I hope that he will find some way to bring in the wider group of people who devote their lives to the care of such young people.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I support the view just expressed by my noble friend. I ask the Minister to be prepared to extend the parameters proposed in the amendment and not to reject it as having parameters that are too narrow. I hope that we can establish the principle tonight that this sort of protection should be given to people who are accused of heinous crimes, quite possibly unjustly, which, once publicised, will destroy their careers irrespective of whether or not they committed them. That principle needs to be accepted. If we can go on from that point to extend the protection to those in other professions, which I believe to be essential, we should do so. However, I do not want us to reject that principle at this point.

Baroness Blatch: I hope that the Committee will forgive me because I spoke only to Amendment No. 18 in my opening remarks. In my enthusiasm and support for that amendment, I did not speak to the others in the group. I do not believe it to be necessary for me to go over all the reasons for extending the categories, because we addressed that argument when discussing Amendment No. 17. However, I wish to add mentors, as established under the Learning and Skills Act 2000, and part-time teachers. If a category of teachers is to be included as being in a position of trust over children, it seems to me that part-time teachers are as important as full-time teachers; indeed, I would argue that they are probably even more so. From what we know about people who act in this way--especially paedophiles--they seem to move around a lot from post to post. Therefore, it seems to me that part-time teachers need to be included, as well as full-time and part-time trainers. It is a question of ensuring that there are no extensive loopholes, which would be the case if these amendments were not accepted.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I can tell him, first, that this does encompass matters that extend rather wider than those presently before the Committee. Secondly, this will involve the working out of relationships with the press under Article 8, and the right to privacy and family life under the Human Rights Act. Thirdly, in answer to his question as to whether this proposal is clear and workable, the answer is no. Fourthly, I can tell the noble Earl that I believe he is safe from any charge because this relates to an offence for a person aged 18 or over, which I believe him to be, whereby that person commits an offence with a person under the age of 18. Fortunately, as he told us earlier, the noble Earl's students are normally over the age of 18.

Earl Russell: I referred to a general problem.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is an example of an amendment which is not capable of working for many reasons. The noble Baroness altered her original amendment, which mentioned no publication before conviction, to no publication before charge. Incidentally, I accept that the court process which addresses these serious offences is extremely lengthy. However, I utter the happiest words in the English language when I say, "I told you so". When we tried to introduce some rational proportionality to reform of the jury system, none of your Lordships agreed although I said that important cases were delayed in favour of the less important.
	Why will the amendment not work? The offence to which it refers is to be found at the bottom of page two of the Bill:
	"it shall be an offence for a person aged 18 or over--
	(a) to have sexual intercourse ... with a person under that age; or
	(b) to engage in any other sexual activity with or directed towards such a person,
	if ... he is in a position of trust in relation to that person".
	Therefore, if an allegation of rape or indecent assault is made against a teacher--which could easily be made in the ways to which my noble friend Lord Stoddart referred--no protection for the teacher is offered by the amendment.
	I mention another point of which I know the noble Baroness is aware. Let us assume that I have a daughter at school aged 17. There is an allegation against a teacher for having sexually interfered with another girl of 17 in the same class. Amendment No. 18 states:
	"Where an allegation has been made that a person has committed an offence under this section and the person is a teacher at an educational institution, it shall be unlawful to publish ... that person's name".
	I should be enraged beyond description if I were not to know of those circumstances. It might even be the case that the teacher in question had admitted matters to the senior teacher or the headmaster. However, under the terms of the amendment, it is an offence for me to know. I believe that that interferes grossly and wrongly with my rights as a parent.
	Secondly, the amendment relates only to teachers. It does not mention, for example, a priest who may visit a school and who is as vulnerable, or perhaps more so, to a certain kind of malicious allegation, particularly a priest who may be celibate. It does not mention a school caretaker who has his life and his rights although he may not be regarded as a mainstream professional. It does not mention a visiting doctor or nurse. It does not mention people--of whom there are a number in this Chamber--who occasionally visit schools, perhaps once, twice or three times a year, to give lectures on politics to schoolchildren.
	I understand the problem that is being addressed but the amendment will not cure the mischief. What will cure the mischief in some cases, although I concede not in all cases, is for charges of malicious prosecution to be brought. The noble Baroness is wrong to suggest that anyone has to prove innocence. My noble friend Lord Stoddart made a point which resonates with me. Both my parents were school teachers and I was a school teacher for a time. What is the difference between a false allegation against a teacher and a false allegation of indecency or indecent exposure against a well regarded bank manager? The noble Baroness says there is none. I agree. I make my next point as carefully as I can. That is why it is extremely dangerous to try to legislate on a piecemeal basis solely on the basis of what I accept is legitimate sympathy. That is a certain recipe for bad legislation.
	A university lecturer may well be seriously damaged by a false allegation. Under the terms of the amendment he, or she--I am told by some that the latter is less likely--will have no protection at all. That is not workable, particularly as the other amendments in the group concern part-time teaching. Is someone who is giving part-time instruction to be protected in this way, but if the allegation is rape there is no protection?
	I readily concede that it is difficult to procure a rational, overall justification for the approach we have to anonymity in sex cases. I do not pretend that that is wholly rational or intellectually sustainable. However, I counsel the Committee against introducing further anomalies on a piecemeal basis which will only make the situation unacceptable and worse. I return to my initial question; namely, why should I as a parent not know about the matters I mentioned?

Lord Elton: I intervene briefly to ask the Minister whether he can accept the principle I mentioned. I accept the point about legislation on a piecemeal basis. However, what interests me is the whole question of anonymity where an unjust charge can destroy someone as effectively as if that person were convicted of it. The Minister's answer is that other persons interested in a case have the right to know what is going on. Presumably, the relatives of the child making the allegation will know because in loco parentis they will have the right to know. I take it that when the Minister said that he, as a parent, had a right to know he meant as a parent of another child in the class. Is that the case?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is precisely the illustration I gave. I said that my 17 year-old daughter is in a class and another 17 year-old is the complainant. I say that I have a moral right, if not a legally assertable right, to know. I would find if extremely surprising if any parent in this Committee took a different view.
	However, I did not fully deal with the noble Lord's point. As soon as the noble Lord identified his test, the answer offers itself; namely, there is no answer which can accommodate his question. I remember the Lord Chief Justice of the time mentioned my next example. I refer to the bank manager who is accused of indecent exposure in a small community; the priest who is accused of theft; and the person who sells poppies who has been in the Royal British Legion and attended the Cenotaph service for the past 40 years. They are also destroyed by such charges.

Lord Elton: Surely then the answer suggests itself; namely, that there are certain charges which should be treated in this way regardless of whom they are made against.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, because the charge of theft--the noble Lord referred to certain charges and I shall try to dissect that--against someone who has committed 25 previous thefts and has been imprisoned is in a completely different qualitative category from the allegation of theft against the poppy seller who has been a devoted servant of the Royal British Legion and has attended the Cenotaph service for 40 years. Those cases are utterly different. The charge in the latter case may well be destructive of that man's life. In the former case, the person concerned hardly cares tuppence because they have, as we say in the trade, "form as long as your leg". One cannot legislate in this way. This is an unpalatable response but if one wants to have a society in which justice is public, I do not think that a remedy will be forthcoming, and certainly not in this piecemeal way. I repeat my question; the allegation of rape would be publishable, but not the allegation under the measure we are discussing. That is not a trivial or drafting question as there are difficult questions involved here. If I knew the answer to them, I should be as happy as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to hear my response.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I appreciate the difficulties posed for my noble and learned friend which are as considerable as those for the rest of us. Those of us who have supported the amendment are perhaps in greater difficulty.
	However, the people we are discussing are in a special position and, indeed, they are in a special position in the Bill because of what they are and what they do. Therefore if they are being put in a special position, and if they are being put in a worse position than anyone else, they are entitled to greater protection than anyone else. Is that not so?
	My noble and learned friend talks about the family of the girl or boy who has been sexually assaulted being entitled to know and the general public--the parents of children who go to the school--being allowed to know. However, the boy or girl who makes the allegation is protected for all time. He or she will never be named. So there is no equity there. That is why I am concerned that we should try to find some balancing factor.
	My noble and learned friend raised the point that when a teacher is alleged to have committed an offence, it will be difficult not to name him perhaps because he admits the offence. But if he admits the offence it is no longer an allegation; so that argument will not wash. I know that the Minister will have difficulty in accepting the amendment but we are all apprised of the enormous problems that the situation is causing. I implore my noble and learned friend to consider the issue very seriously indeed. I urge him to take the matter away to his department and perhaps to the Law Commission, asking it to undertake an urgent job on trying to protect people who are in a position of responsibility in relation to children and young persons. The matter is urgent. The public are getting very worried about what is happening. They are concerned about unfairness. I know that my noble and learned friend feels the same as we do. I ask him, therefore, to try to do something as a Government even if he will not accept the amendment; and I appreciate his difficulties.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: They are not difficulties that I have. They are difficulties which arise from the unworkable nature of the amendment. That is quite different.
	First, in my illustration I did not say that the general public had a right to know. I repeat what I said. If I were the father of a 17 year-old child and another girl had complained about the teacher I would wish to know about the allegation; and I think that I would be entitled to know about that.
	Secondly, my noble friend Lord Stoddart said that those people have been put in a less favoured category in the Bill. That is not so because the provision refers only to teachers. It does not refer to supervisory people in children's homes. A lesson might be learned from the Waterhouse report: that when the allegations were made they should have been published. That is the other side of that particular penny. I understand what my noble friend says about the Law Commission considering the matter. A number of us know that a lot of thought has been given to the issue of anonymity for complainants in sexual offences and different conclusions have been arrived at in relation to anonymity for defendants in sexual matters. If anyone present today, or who reads these debates, is able to produce a workable formula, which I doubt, no one would be happier than me.

Baroness Blatch: I am interested that the noble and learned Lord hinges much of his opposition on the fact that the amendment covers only teachers and not care workers and others. If that is the argument, I should have a good deal of respect for it. My guess is that the noble and learned Lord is against our amendment on principle and that these reasons are being used for not accepting the amendment.
	The noble and learned Lord cannot get away from the fact that there is a specific issue for teachers in schools. One knows from the statistics that it is teachers who are maliciously or vexatiously accused of sexually or physically abusing a child. We are not referring to poppy sellers who are wrongly accused of having their hands in the till. The amendment empathises with the teachers in this plight and sympathises with them. I should be interested to know where the noble and learned Lord stands on the principle. If he says that there should be reference to all staff in schools, we shall attend to that point on Report. We shall even broaden the provision to care workers or make it a blanket provision until charges are preferred.
	As regards teachers admitting the allegation, I know of a personal example. My children were at a school where the head teacher was convicted of abusing children. The moment he was approached he admitted it. The charges were preferred within 24 hours and that was the end of it.
	Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will also remember that a teacher is automatically suspended. We do not interfere with that. The teacher would be suspended. There is no doubt that in the noble and learned Lord's example of being a parent of a 17 year-old girl, he would know. But what about the media? Is the noble and learned Lord sympathetic to the notion that the media do not have the information; that parents should be barred from going to the media--newspapers and local radio? It is that kind of publicity which does for the teacher who has been maliciously accused of sexual abuse of a child.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: All these questions demonstrate the impossibility of making the amendment work. I gave the illustration of theft by the poppy seller because the noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked: should there not be some protection for those whose lives may be devastated by the mere bringing of the allegation? It seems to me that he was entitled to a response which I gave. I dealt with the question of the teacher because the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that teachers were disadvantaged by the Bill. I have pointed out accurately that they are not uniquely disadvantaged.
	The noble Baroness says that a teacher would be suspended and that I as a parent would know. I would know of the suspension; I would not know the charge. The suggestion that if an allegation is admitted it becomes no longer an allegation is unknown to any system of jurisprudence which I recognise.

Baroness Blatch: We have heard enough to know that there are difficulties with the amendment. I wish to reflect on what the noble and learned Lord said and to bring back the amendment on Report. I believe that there is a real issue here.
	My only regret--it is a serious one--is that there was not more empathy for the teachers and the plight they have. It is a very real issue for them. The Government have not responded with empathy to them in that plight. I regret that. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Carter: I beg to move that the Committee stage be now adjourned and that we return at 8.45 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 7.58 to 8.45 p.m.]

Lord Monson: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 3, line 31, at end insert--
	("(6) No proceedings shall be instituted except by or with the consent of--
	(a) in England and Wales, the Director of Public Prosecutions;
	(b) in Scotland, the Lord Advocate; or
	(c) in Northern Ireland, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland,
	against any person for an offence under this section if the person was at the time of the commission under the age of twenty-one.").

Lord Monson: The noble Earl, Lord Russell said at dinner that I had drawn the short straw in the timing of my amendment. How right he was.
	Most of the amendments to Clauses 3 and 4, with the exception of Amendment No. 18, which we debated before the dinner break, are designed to plug loopholes inadvertently left by the Government. This amendment is rather different, going slightly in the opposite direction. It is designed to provide a safeguard against the well known law of unintended consequences, which could otherwise lead to draconian action against the undeserving, or at least the not very deserving.
	Vulnerable young people must be protected from sexual exploitation by people in authority who are vastly senior to them in age and perhaps in other respects and who are accordingly difficult for the young people concerned to rebuff. On the other hand, throughout human history all over the world, young people of roughly similar age, intelligence and interests have fallen for one another in unexpected circumstances. The fact that the slightly older party may be technically in a position of trust is almost irrelevant to the romance--or to the affair, if one wants to be slightly more cynical.
	Consider a 19 year-old nurse who is caught kissing a 16 or 17 year-old patient who may look 20 or more, or a 20 year-old carpentry teacher caught embracing a 17 year-old pupil. Surely none of us wants them to be sent to prison for two years, or even brought to court to face a fine. The Bill makes even the mildest sexual contact illegal.
	Different considerations apply should the younger party have a mental age of 10, for example. In that case, a prosecution might well be appropriate. Nothing in the amendment would prevent that after careful consideration at the highest level. The amendment is designed to protect young people of a similar age who happen to hit it off with one another.
	I hope that the Government and the Committee will accept this modest safeguard against unmerited, unnecessary and undesirable prosecutions. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Law Commission has dealt with the issue and reported in 1998. The Solicitor General in another place welcomed its report in principle. It set out the following criteria for consent provisions for the prosecution of offences: where prosecution might violate a convention right; where it might involve national security or some other international element; and where there might otherwise be a high risk that the right of private prosecution would be abused and the institution of proceedings would cause irreparable harm.
	The amendment is not desirable, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is comforted that in the case of ill-founded, malicious or vexatious prosecutions, Section 6(2) of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 gives the Director of Public Prosecutions the power to take over and discontinue a private prosecution. As the Crown Prosecution Service is directed by the DPP, he would be able to give guidelines about when charges should be brought, if he thought it appropriate. I hope that that is of assistance to the noble Lord.

Lord Monson: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I was not thinking of private prosecutions or of malicious or vexatious ones. I was thinking of legitimate prosecutions in cases in which technically an offence had been committed but when in practice it would be unfair or unreasonable to prosecute. However, if the Minister assures me--I think that he probably has done, but I must read his comments in Hansard--that in practice the effect of the amendment will be carried, I am content to withdraw it. I shall have to study the Minister's comments, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Meaning of "position of trust"]:

Baroness Young: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 3, line 34, leave out ("four") and insert ("five").

Baroness Young: This amendment was linked to Amendment No. 17. Clearly, now that Amendment No. 17 has been carried, I should have thought that "four" must include "five" because we have passed the other condition. I do not believe that there is a need for me to add anything further to the argument. I beg to move Amendment No. 20 and I hope that the Government will accept it.

Baroness Blatch: During the dinner break I was promised a piece of paper which would tell me how the Government viewed this group of amendments. I have not received it. Therefore--

Lord Bach: Before the Deputy Chairman entered the Chamber I spoke to the noble Baroness to explain which amendments the Government found acceptable and which they did not; that is, which amendments were consequential on Amendment No. 17 and which were not. I am very sorry that that was not put in writing. I believed that it would be more useful if I explained the situation orally, and that is what I did.

Baroness Blatch: If the noble Lord will forgive me, we were preparing for the next amendment. The Deputy Chairman was about to walk through the door. The noble Lord was indicating across his paper and saying this, that and the other. I did not take it all in. I should like to know which amendments the noble Lord considers to be consequential and which he does not.

Lord Bach: Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness. The Committee has passed Amendment No. 17. However, I am advised that Amendment No. 20 is not consequential on Amendment No. 17. It raises the number "four" to "five". So far as concerns the other amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 stand on their own. Amendment No. 30 would be one possible fifth condition if Amendment No. 20 were passed. Amendment No. 31 would be another completely different fifth condition if Amendment No. 20 were passed. Amendment No. 34 would be yet another fifth condition if Amendment No. 20 were passed, and Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 would in themselves both be fifth conditions if Amendment No. 20 were passed. Therefore, we argue that the amendments are not consequential. In fact, the latter amendments are alternatives. It is right that Amendment No. 44 in the group is consequential on Amendment No. 20.

Baroness Blatch: I am not sure that I follow that. I understood the noble Lord to say that Amendment No. 17 stands alone and that Amendment No. 20 is not consequential on Amendment No. 17. Nevertheless, Amendment No. 20 is the paver for the ones that follow. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 stand alone. However, Amendment No. 20 is linked and therefore must be a consequential amendment for Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 34, 35, 36 and 40.

Lord Bach: Forgive me; I have not explained myself fully. Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and the other amendments that I mentioned are all quite separate from each other. They represent different alternative fifth conditions. They are not linked. They are all different conditions. In effect, they stand one against the other unless it is intended that they should be fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth conditions. Therefore, although they cannot even be voted on unless Amendment No. 20 is successful, if they are voted on, they will all be different, one from the other.

Lord Renton: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord how it is that they are grouped together. As I understand it, the matter of grouping is one on which the Government must make a decision and on which they must agree.

Lord Bach: That is not right. In the end, the groupings are down to those who table the amendments. However, because amendments are grouped, it does not follow that one amendment in a group is consequential on or follows from another.

Earl Russell: I understand that Amendment No. 20 can pave one, but only one, fifth condition. Therefore, were we to vote on Amendment No. 20 and to carry it, we would pave a fifth condition. However, we would need to know which of the possible amendments listed as the fifth condition was the one that we were paving. Were the amendment to have been worded "fifth", "sixth", "seventh" or "eighth" condition, it could have paved the way for them all. However, only one condition can be fifth; at least, that is my understanding. I hope that I have interpreted the Minister and the Bill correctly.

Lord Northbourne: That was not what we were assured by the Public Bill Office.

Baroness Blatch: That was not what we were advised by the Public Bill Office; nor was it a courtesy offered to us by the Minister when we voted on Amendment No. 17. I believe that many noble Lords left this Chamber believing that they had voted for these amendments. They will learn to their horror that they had not.
	Before I decide what to do about Amendment No. 20, will the noble and learned Lord answer the question that I posed in relation to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22? I explained that I believed it to be important that protection should be offered to a young person who was normally resident at a home but who was farmed out to a bungalow, such as one referred to in the Bryn Alyn case, or somewhere else and who was not technically in that particular institution at a given time. It would be helpful to have from the noble and learned Lord an answer to my interpretation of what I believed my amendment meant.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: We are going back a long way in our debate, but I am happy to do it. The noble Baroness's concern is not well founded. A young person may be resident in an institution, even if he is temporarily elsewhere. Plenty of precedent exists for such a situation; for example, in immigration or benefit law.

Baroness Blatch: The wording on the face of the Bill as it stands is that protection applies only if the person in question is resident. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that someone who is normally resident but at a particular time has either absconded or is in a place other than the institution would receive protection under this particular clause in this particular Bill?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: If I am resident at my home, I remain resident at my home, even if at the weekend I stay in a hostel or a hotel elsewhere. I am resident at my home. Therefore, a person may well be resident in an institution even if temporarily he is somewhere else.

Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may use an analogy. In an insurance claim one can be compensated for the loss of a piece of equipment or jewellery if it is under lock and key in a residence. However, if the item is lost when one is travelling en route, some insurance companies will not meet a claim for compensation simply because at the time of the incident the item was not where it should have been. For the purposes of Pepper v. Hart it is important that I get this absolutely right. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that my concern is unfounded?Is he saying that if someone has absconded and an offence takes place or someone is somewhere else other than the place where he is normally resident, he is still protected under this particular provision which says "is resident in"? If the person has absconded, he could be resident, albeit temporarily, somewhere else.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I cannot make it plainer. The noble Baroness is confusing two concepts. She uses the description "in a home". That is not what the Bill says. "Resident in a home" is a legal concept and residence in a home continues even when the individual is not physically in the home.

Baroness Blatch: It is Committee stage so I can press the noble and learned Lord to be helpful. It would be extremely helpful if he simply said "yes" to me but he is avoiding saying that on the record.
	Clause 4(4) states:
	"The third condition is that A looks after persons under 18 who are accommodated and cared for in an institution which is ... a hospital ... residential care home, nursing home, mental nursing home or private hospital; ... a community home, voluntary home, children's home or residential establishment; ... or a home provided under section 82(5) of the Children Act 1989, and B is accommodated or cared for in that institution".
	My amendment includes the word "normally" because it is possible that at the time of the offence, a person may not be accommodated in that institution. It does not say "normally resident"; it says "in an institution". If the person is not accommodated in that institution but, nevertheless, is a person of that institution, would he be protected under this clause?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Baroness is asking me a third question now. Her original question was focused, I assume, on Clause 4(3). The second condition is,
	"that A looks after a person under 18 who are resident in a home or other place".
	I have made it quite plain. That is a legal concept on which it is for the courts to adjudicate.
	It is no good asking me whether a person is in a home, and it has nothing to do with insurance claims. I cannot make it any plainer than I have.

Baroness Blatch: My amendment does not relate to subsection (3) but to subsection (4)(d). The second line of that subsection states:
	"a home provided under Section 82(5) of the Children Act 1989, and B is accommodated and cared for in that institution".
	If the noble and learned Lord is right in what he is saying, he should be able to say "yes" to my question. Does the protection continue to apply if the offence takes place with a child who is normally resident or normally accommodated in the home but, for the purposes of the offence, is not in the home because he has absconded or is at another residence, accommodated in another place? The Bill does not say "normally resident"; it says "is accommodated in".
	If the noble and learned Lord says that the protection continues, then I do not have to worry about my amendment. But if he cannot give an affirmative answer in that regard, I shall continue to have that worry.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is not the question that I was originally asked, which related to the word "resident". I shall put "resident" and "in a home" on one side because they no longer seem to be the phrases in question.
	A person is accommodated and cared for in an institution even if that person, on occasions, while being accommodated there, for example, goes out of the house, out of the institution and out of the care home. I have never myself understood it to be suggested that "accommodated" means that you have to be within that accommodation for every second of every day in order to have that protection. It is a question for the courts to adjudicate on. But I repeat that they are well-known legal concepts. That deals with "accommodation".

Baroness Young: Perhaps I may pursue this further because it is an extremely serious matter. It is not just a kind of legal quibble. If you are not a lawyer, it is quite difficult to follow the argument.
	I can read what it says here about being "accommodated" or "resident" in. The noble and learned Lord seems to be saying that when the boy is not in the home, it would be for the courts to decide whether or not this provision applies. Is that security enough?
	We are saying that if the boy has absconded, for example, and is therefore living somewhere else, and certainly not accommodated in the home or resident in it, is he covered? If I understood him right, he seems to be saying, "It is perfectly all right. Do not worry about it all. It means he is really there and the courts will decide whether he was there or not". He clearly was not there. I do not understand the point.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: Perhaps I may offer some assistance. If I put it in non-legal language, it sounded to me as thought he noble and learned Lord was saying that the person remains, as it were, on the books of the home whether he is in it or out of it. That is what I understood the noble and learned Lord to be saying and it may be helpful to put it in that language to see whether that is indeed what he is saying.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have been trying to say that, and I am most grateful. If a person is absent from the institution where he is either "resident" or "accommodated", he is still protected. I repeat that he does not have to be physically present for 24 hours of every day. I repeat that my residence remains what it is even if I am away from it.

Baroness Blatch: The noble and learned Lord could have circumvented this discussion a lot earlier simply by saying that I am right. I make a distinction. I am not talking about going out shopping, going to a cinema or going to play somewhere with friends. I am talking about a young person who has absconded from an institution--and I am sorry if the noble and learned Lord is offended by the word "home"--or is on a long break in a holiday house somewhere. In the Bryn Alyn cases, young people were positively farmed out to a group of paedophiles living in a bungalow somewhere other than the home. So those young people were not accommodated in the home, although they were normally cared for and accommodated in that institution.
	The more the noble and learned Lord has spoken, the more I believe that the words "normally accommodated and cared for in the institution" are appropriate. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 69.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 not moved.]

Baroness Young: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 24:
	Page 4, line 16, at end insert--
	("(5A) The fifth condition is that A is the parent, adoptive parent, step-parent, former step-parent, grandparent, sibling, half-sibling or adoptive sibling of B.").

Baroness Young: This is an important amendment in a completely different group to the amendment we have just been discussing. We were discussing amendments tabled as a result of the report by Sir Ronald Waterhouse into the North Wales case.

Earl Russell: Perhaps I can have some clarification from the noble Baroness. Is she speaking to Amendment No. 24?

Baroness Young: That is correct.

Earl Russell: I thought Amendment No. 24 was consequential on Amendment No. 20, which has just been defeated.

Baroness Young: Perhaps I can have some clarification. As I understand it, Amendment No. 20 was defeated, but Amendment No. 24 takes a completely new point.

Lord Carter: As a result of the Division on Amendment No. 20, Amendment No. 24 is consequential.

Lord Bach: When, after the Dinner break, we discussed which amendments were consequential and which were not, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that if Amendment No. 20 were passed one of the numbered "fifth" conditions could be moved. Amendment No. 20 would be a paving amendment to one of those. However, any mention of a fifth condition would be inappropriate because in defeating Amendment No. 20 the Committee has agreed that there shall be only four conditions.

Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may ask two questions. First, given that there is a rumour to the contrary, will the noble and learned Lord say whether it is intended that the Bill shall receive a Report stage? Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will know that the fifth condition proposed in Amendment No. 20 is a technicality. One cannot say "sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth" because the technicality is that there shall be a fifth condition. Therefore, the amendments would have been grouped and it is not right to say that only one would have been acceptable.
	Perhaps I may also ask for advice from the Clerk. I understand that as regards a fifth condition it would not be appropriate tonight to press Amendment No. 24, but if the parent, adoptive parent and so forth became part of the relevant category, would it be necessary for the Government to find the appropriate place for it in the Bill?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The future conduct of the Bill is entirely a matter for the business managers and not for me. I believe that the advice given by my noble friend Lord Bach is correct.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I rise with the intention of being helpful but I doubt whether I shall succeed. If the argument is that we cannot proceed with further amendments which add a fifth condition because the amendment which would allow that has been defeated, these matters could be aired on the Question whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill and the Government would have an opportunity to consider them before the Report stage.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord has succeeded in being helpful. I believe that he is right.

Baroness Young: Perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 24. It is a matter which we shall raise at the Report stage and I want to give notice of that. I am astonished that the Government Front Bench and those on the Benches behind them do not see the issue as being serious. Incidentally, it was raised in their White Paper, Setting the Boundaries, and it was recommended that it should become law.
	I shall not press the case because I take the point that the possibility of a fifth condition has been defeated but I want to make it clear that we shall return to the matter on Report.

[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]

Baroness Young: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 25:
	Page 4, line 16, at end insert--
	("(5A) The fifth condition is that A is the uncle or aunt of B.").

Baroness Young: The same applies to Amendment No. 25. We shall bring the matter back on Report.

[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]

Baroness Young: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 26:
	Page 4, line 16, at end insert--
	("(5A) The fifth condition is that A looks after persons under 18 who are members of a church or religious organisation and B is a member of that church or religious organisation.").

Baroness Young: This amendment covers Church or religious organisations and it, too, must be brought back on Report.

[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]

Baroness Young: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 28:
	Page 4, line 16, at end insert--
	("(5A) The fifth condition is that a parent or guardian has entrusted A with looking after their child B.").

Baroness Young: Again, we shall return to this matter on Report.

[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I wonder whether I am the only person who is now thoroughly puzzled. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, make a helpful proposal, which I then heard the noble and learned Lord the Minister accept as helpful, namely that it is possible to work on a clause stand part basis. I then heard the noble Baroness, Lady Young, take no notice of that, and, it sounded to me, lose an opportunity to work on the material, as she was being given an opportunity to do by the noble and learned Lord the Minister. I am therefore thoroughly puzzled. I wonder whether I am the only person who is thoroughly puzzled or whether I, too, have misheard it all.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My understanding--and I thought that the learned Attorney-General agreed with me--is that on the issue of clause stand part you are entitled to discuss not only what is in it but other matters relevant to it. I see the learned Clerk nodding. It seems to me, therefore, that although one cannot at this moment move any of the particular amendments that refer to a fifth condition, it is possible on a debate on clause stand part to raise the issues covered in those amendments and invite the Government to say what their general view is and what they are prepared to consider, so that amendments can then be put down on Report in the knowledge of the Government's overall reaction.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I can only repeat that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has said. But it is a matter for the noble Baroness to take what course she pleases on her amendments.

Lord Carter: If it would help on the numbering, I think we have to get to Amendment No. 44 in its place in the Marshalled List before we reach the end of the amendments to Clause 4, and that would be the appropriate point at which to debate the Question That Clause 4 stand part.

Lord Monson: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether it is the case that there is no reason why Amendment No. 41 should not be moved, because it is not dependent on a fifth condition. Amendment No. 41 comes naturally before Amendment No. 44. No mention is made of a fifth condition so far as Amendment No. 41 is concerned. Therefore, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is perfectly entitled to move Amendment No. 41 if she wishes.

Earl Russell: I think we have confused two questions here. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was responding to the question as to what point we have to reach before we can have a general discussion on clause stand part. I agree with him. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has picked up a different question: how far down the list of amendments do we have to go before we reach a point where we are not blocked by the existence of a fifth condition? It is a different question. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is also right.

[Amendments Nos. 29 to 40 not moved.]

Baroness Young: moved Amendment No. 41:
	Page 4, line 22, after ("of") insert (", or in loco parentis to,").

Baroness Young: The wording of this amendment makes its meaning perfectly clear. It seeks to protect children from adults who are in loco parentis. Once again, we are talking about an abuse of trust by adults who are in a position of trust with children, defined in law as 16 year-olds and others. This amendment includes them in the list of those people who have been excluded by the Government's very narrow definition of "abuse of trust" in this Bill. The amendment is perfectly clear and I hope that the Government will accept it. These very serious points arise not only from the Waterhouse inquiry but the fact that currently another 32 inquiries are being conducted into local authority children's homes of one kind or another. When we have an opportunity to try to correct some of the matters that have been identified as being wrong we should do so. This important category stands with all the others. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: If one looks at subsections (2) to (5) of Clause 4, a person who cares for, trains, supervises or is in sole charge of a young person is already covered by the proposed offence and will frequently be "in loco parentis to". We find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which a person would be in loco parentis and yet would not look after a child. After all, if one asks what it is that parents do--in other words, what "in loco parentis" means--they look after children. One possible example is the director of the social services department of a local authority. He may be in loco parentis, but it is very unlikely that he will ever come into contact with the child, let alone engage in a relationship. A person such as a head teacher or head of a care home will have more regular contact with a child, but that individual will have a caring and/or supervisory role and, therefore, is caught by the "looks after" requirement.
	My understanding is that this additional category is unnecessary. I take the points that the noble Baroness makes. Without giving any particular promise, I shall look at the matter again with officials to see whether there is truly a gap which needs to be filled. At the moment, my advice is that there is no such gap. Bearing in mind the concern of the noble Baroness, I am more than content to review the position with officials.

Baroness Young: I attach considerable importance to these amendments. Having lost the previous Division, perhaps we shall return to many of these matters on clause stand part, but that puts them in a very different position. I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's offer to look at the matter. When we discussed these matters earlier the noble and learned Lord referred to Clause 4(1) and the possibility of including further groups of people by statutory instrument. For example, at Second Reading he referred to the possibility of including scouts. Another group is the present one. That would be a constructive way forward which would meet our concerns. We shall listen with great interest to what the noble and learned Lord says at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Young: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Page 4, line 23, leave out ("full-time").

Baroness Young: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 18. My noble friend Lady Blatch and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, carefully pressed the whole case relating to allegations about full-time teachers. This consequential amendment covers part-time teachers, who would be equally involved. As my noble friend has agreed to withdraw her amendment for further consideration I shall not press the matter at this time of night. Once again, the particular case of teachers is a real one. We believe that since 1991 there have been well over 1,000 allegations made against teachers. There have been few convictions. But for many people, their lives and those of their families have been ruined, together with their relationships with neighbours and friends. Not only is that issue damaging to them, but--if I may take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart--it actually makes recruitment to the teaching profession more difficult.
	From what I have read of his remarks, I believe that the right honourable Mr David Blunkett, the Secretary of State, is sympathetic to this case. I am at a loss to understand why the Government cannot draft their own amendment to meet the case of teachers, and in this case part-time teachers, who are affected by it. All the other cases referred to are of course serious. I am not in any way writing those down. The one professional group who could possibly be subject to these allegations--we know from the number of cases that have been brought forward--are teachers. Both for the sake of individual teachers and for the teaching profession as a whole, this matter needs to be looked at. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to say that this is something that the Government can take away and redraft to meet what I genuinely believe is a real case. I beg to move.

Lord Northbourne: In the context of what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has just said, it occurred to me that those who accept the considerable responsibility of a post which puts them in a position of trust in relation to a child could reasonably expect to have some proper protection. It may be that it is in that context that some degree of confidentiality for teachers and other people who are defined as being in a position of trust towards a child could be afforded so that they are protected from the risks to which the noble Baroness has drawn attention.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I set out the Government's position fairly plainly. I regret to say that I do not think this amendment will be workable. I have not gone at any great length into the question of Article 10--the function of a free press in a free society.
	The noble Baroness is quite right. It is undoubtedly true that my right honourable friend Mr Blunkett has had extensive consultations with the teaching unions. I repeat my own personal sympathy, although that does not take matters further forward. As I have said, both my parents were school teachers throughout the whole of their professional lives.
	I take the point made by the noble Baroness. The difficulty is that we begin with teachers, but the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne--who has also had discussions, from which we have all benefited--then extends it to others. I sympathise with the point that is made. I simply question whether one will ever be able to draft a law to cover this issue. One simply adds to the category of anomalies. I am always willing to think about things, but I would not want the noble Baroness to think that there is a likely happy outcome for her concerns.

Baroness Young: We had this discussion privately last week. What I find disappointing is that the noble and learned Lord, together with his advisers, feels that he cannot bring forward an amendment to meet this difficulty. I would guess that there is no one in the Chamber who does not have sympathy for the situation in which these people find themselves. Many members of my family have taught. I have a daughter who teaches full-time in a maintained school so I am very conscious of the kinds of situation which arise. I believe profoundly in the importance of teachers and in getting high quality people to go into teaching. But I can assure the House that a great many able graduates would not consider going into teaching. They do not quite laugh at the prospect, but, apart from anything else, why should they take this kind of risk?
	It gives me no pleasure to say that, because it is such a serious situation. I shall, of course, withdraw the amendment but I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord, perhaps in conjunction with his colleagues in the DfEE, who must be very concerned about the effect on the teaching profession, will consider the matter carefully. I know that it is not easy--lots of the most difficult problems are not easy to solve--but that does not quite exonerate us from trying to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Despite the lateness of the hour, I wonder whether I might take up a little of the Committee's time to discuss Clause 4.
	My understanding of the position--I should be grateful for the agreement of the Attorney-General when he comes to reply--is that we have voted to retain 18 as the age below which buggery will be a criminal offence, but we have accepted those clauses of the Bill which provide that other sexual activity, if I may use a general phrase, is a crime only when committed against a person of 16. The Government have then gone on in Clause 3 to say that, despite that decision to lower the age of consent to 16, in certain circumstances, where there is a person in a position of trust, it shall still be an offence for that person to engage himself in any other sexual activity or to have intercourse with a person who is under his care at that time. Clause 4 then sets out the meanings of the phrase "position of trust" and proposes the four classes which the Government recommend should be covered by that new offence.
	In an earlier discussion I referred to the cases we faced on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. While I accept that almost by their very nature the offences we are considering are offences where the abuse is a criminal act and therefore would remain a criminal act because they are done without consent, I am sure the Attorney-General would agree that the issue of consent is not necessarily an easy one to decide. What happens in many of these cases is not a question of physical coercion to impose the will of an older man on a younger child. It is first of all befriending a vulnerable child, particularly in a home where he is perhaps lonely and isolated. The older man is the member of staff to whom the child goes. From there the child starts being invited into the member of staff's room in the evening. Then perhaps "small favours", to use a phrase used by the Attorney-General at Second Reading--I read with great care what he said about these cases--are offered to the child. Small presents are given. Slowly, the child is moved into a situation in which he becomes involved in sexual acts with that individual without ever clearly either consenting or refusing to give consent.
	In the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board it was easy to determine, on the balance of proof, that that consent had been suborned and was not real consent and therefore the act remained a crime of violence for which the victim could be compensated. But when it comes to prosecuting the individual in the courts and proving beyond reasonable doubt that the act he committed was carried out without the consent of the individual on whom it was imposed, it may be considerably more difficult to meet that burden of proof and achieve a result. I can understand why the Government have felt it necessary, in so far as any matter which is non-consensual is already a crime, to bring in provisions to cover where a person in a position of trust who acts in a sexual way towards an individual could himself, by that act, be committing an offence. It meets the case where it is difficult to say whether or not the act on the part of an individual is consensual.
	The Attorney-General earlier explained very clearly why the Government felt it right to set out in Clause 4 the four classes of people who fall into such positions of trust. I do not disagree in any way with the arguments that he advanced. As he said, the gravamen was the fact that such children were being used or abused by those in whose care the courts had ordered them to be detained.
	The purpose of all the amendments to Clause 4 is to ask whether we have covered adequately those groups of people in positions of trust whose influence on the individual may be such that they should also be put at the same risk of infringing the criminal law, should they involve themselves in sexual activity with that individual. Perhaps I may take, for example, Amendment No. 24, to which I have added my name. Over my years serving on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, experience taught me that, sadly, a proportion of abuse was concerned with the family situation. The amendment seeks to examine the position of the step-parent or half-sibling of the individual being abused. They are in a position of trust as regards that individual and thus, certainly in my experience, from time to time they will abuse that trust in a situation where it can be difficult to say whether they were committing an offence because they were achieving something that was non-consensual, but who have persuaded their step-child or half-sibling to involve themselves in acts to which otherwise they would not have agreed, had they had been freely able to consent. I believe that a recent Home Office publication examines whether abuse in the family is an area which should also require protection under the position of trust provisions.
	Moving on quickly through the other amendments to the clause, I notice that Amendment No. 26 deals with members of a church or a religious organisation. Sadly, we all know that, over recent months, considerable publicity has been given to certain cases where a tiny minority of individuals have involved themselves with abuse of those in their care through a religious organisation. The amendment asks should they, too, be covered by the position of trust? Equally, should social care workers be covered by the position of trust? The final amendments ask whether a social services inspector of services should also be covered by the position of trust.
	The general point I wish to make--to which I invite the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to reply--is this. Recognising the need for an offence of breaking a position of trust, is he sure that the Government have adequately covered the groups to which that offence should apply; or should they at least look again at the groups proposed by the Opposition? None of the groups can be voted on individually today because the paving amendment was defeated, but the Opposition may or may not wish to return to them at a later stage.

Lord Waddington: Perhaps I may take this opportunity of mentioning a matter which has concerned me throughout the Bill. Very often government spokesmen speak of the Bill as one which, somehow or other, extends the rights of young people. Frankly, I do not imagine that very many young people aged 16 or 17 who, if they were involved in some kind of sexual relationship with another young person, would run the risk of prosecution. The truth of the matter is that if the Bill bestows rights on any particular class of person, it bestows rights on older people who may be minded to prey on young people. That is the problem with the Bill.
	I would not mind if the Bill dealt with that situation--I am sure that, with some ingenuity, it could have done--but it riles with me that time and time again people get up and say "This is all about the rights of people aged 16 and 17". It has nothing whatever to do with that. What makes me such a fervent opponent of the Bill is that it confers rights on those who may be minded to prey on young people, and prey on young people who, as I said earlier, are mere children in terms of international law and the international documents which control these matters.
	What is wrong with the clause is that it is not as wide as it could be. People like myself could be completely mollified. If the Government were to take the view that, in every case where there could be the opportunity of someone taking advantage of young people, the young people were protected, I would be a happy man. We do not get that attitude from the Government; instead, we get exactly the opposite and they say, "No, no. It is far too difficult. There is no real position of trust there. We cannot accept this amendment, we cannot accept that amendment".
	If they were prepared to face the concerns of the public, the Government would be willing to extend the abuse of trust provisions as wide as possible in order to prove to the public that they were giving new rights to young people while at the same time protecting them against those who might be minded to prey on them. That is what has worried me throughout the whole of the Bill and why I have taken this opportunity on clause stand part to say these few words.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: Perhaps I may put again in summary the point I made earlier, although at the wrong moment, to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General by reference to something which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said. If I heard aright, he summarised the Minister's insistence on four conditions only by saying that the gravamen of all four of them was that they had to do with young people who were committed to particular institutions by the action of a court or within the law. But it seems to me that only the first two of the conditions in the Bill fall under that head and that the third and fourth, set out in subsections (4) and (5) at the top of page 4, are more general.
	I hope it is reasonable to raise again the question that I put to the Minister at a less opportune moment earlier. Why should there be an absolute distinction between the Government's commitment on the one hand to those elements that are in the Bill and their apparently acute reservations about including within the clause provisions relating to other elements of abuse of trust--including a reference to churches and religious organisations, which we on these Benches support, and the references to family in the broader sense?
	I hope that, before Report stage, the Government will take a clear look at how many of the proposals on which we have not been able to vote today can be written on to the face of the Bill. I have heard no clear reason why the distinction that the Minister drew should be drawn and why as many as possible of these proposals should not be included in the Bill.

Earl Russell: I shall detain the Committee only briefly. I am glad that Clause 4 is in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, will remember that right from the beginning I supported her suggestion that some such clause should be included.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, explained with numinous clarity, we are dealing with a situation where there is an abuse of power. There is a situation of unequal power; therefore, there is an unequal relationship which gives rise to a serious possibility of oppression. It is right that we should deal with such situations.
	We are, however, attempting something of extraordinary difficulty in the drafting. We have here a grey area. We have relationships that we clearly wish to prohibit and relationships that are on the edge of what we wish to prohibit. I take the courtship of Othello and Desdemona as an example of what I have in mind--where there is clearly an inequality of power and estate. I think it is just outside the scope of what we want to cover in the clause.
	We have also a whole series of problems about the drafting of legislation. First, there is the problem to which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has constantly, and rightly, drawn our attention: the problem of single issue legislation, which needs to be interlocked with the greatest of care with other legislation in the field. Listening to the noble and learned Lord, I was again reminded of a work on criminal legislation in the 18th century when there was a proliferation of criminal offences because everyone got angry about one thing in turn and legislated about it in isolation. As the author of that book put it, a member who was robbed of his turnips introduced a statute for the death penalty for stealing turnips, never thinking that the catastrophe that happened this year to his turnips might happen next year to his potatoes. So we need to be sure that we interlock the legislation with other provisions.
	We need to be aware also of the dangers of single purpose legislation. Very often, in any Parliament, in any century, we get into a general state of strong feeling about one particular issue. We have usually identified a genuine mischief, but we never think that when the statute is used in court it will be applied to a case that is almost certainly oblique to our original purpose in discussing the Bill. So there may be an overflow effect, with the clause touching matters that we had no intention of touching.
	In the case of abuse of trust, there are clearly relationships that we wish to prohibit. It is also clear that a relationship of trust and a sexual relationship cannot exist concurrently. However, there are cases where they have existed sequentially with, perhaps, a period of some length in between the two. I can think of many businessmen who have married their secretaries--in fact, that is a position of trust--where what has ultimately resulted has been a genuine loving relationship of a sort that we would not wish to see harried by the criminal law. Getting that boundary right is something of quite extraordinary difficulty.
	Therefore, when we deal with amendments that define a position of trust, we need to be certain of the following factors: how long the trust goes on; when it is terminated, which is not clear in the draft of the Bill now before us; and how long a relationship creates a position of trust, which is why the amendments here regarding the words "full-time" and "regularly" raise questions that go a good deal deeper than we realise. I am glad that this provision is in the Bill, but I am not yet sure that we have got it right. Although we are, rightly, concerned about one particular issue, we must avoid the risk of single purpose legislation blinding us to its possible consequences in other areas.

Lord Northbourne: As I understand it, Clause 4 is about the question of who is in a position of trust. It seems to me that the definition of "a position of trust" will, inevitably, sooner or later become an issue that has to be thought about and settled. That is particularly so in the context of those categories of young people and of adults who do not fall neatly into the categories of one or other kind of employment, activity or status in the family.
	In my view, a position of trust comprises two elements, which the Bill perhaps does not make quite clear. There are two kinds of trust: first, there is the trust placed by the child in an adult. Such a person may be in a position to influence the child for one reason or another; for example, he may have the child's admiration through hero worship, he may have lived in the same household as the child for 10 or 15 years and, indeed, may be able to frighten or threaten the child or be able to flatter him with compliments, presents and treats. In that context, we must remember not only the bright, street-wise kid. We must also remember the kid with learning difficulties and the one who is on drugs and, therefore, desperate to get money. There are also other categories of vulnerable, young people.
	Secondly, there is the trust placed by the state in an adult who is put in a position to look after children. Indeed, parents, guardians or the state may put you, me or someone else in a position of responsibility for a child. That is a position of trust. My Amendment No. 37, which I hope to have the opportunity to speak to at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings, suggests three categories of situation where a position of trust exists. The first relates to the trust that a child may have for certain adults. The second relates to the trust placed in an adult by parents, guardians and the state. The third emphasises the issue of undue influence, which is a key issue in defining a position of trust--as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, just observed, a position of unequal power.
	I turn for a moment to the matters discussed under Amendment No. 24; namely, sexual abuse within the family. The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to arrange for me to receive a chapter from the Home Office paper, Setting the Boundaries. Having studied the text, I think that all noble Lords who are interested in this debate should take the opportunity to study it carefully before the next stage. It seems to me to consider the issues most sensibly and to come forward with very sensible solutions. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us an assurance at some stage that it is the Government's intention to put as many as possible of the paper's proposals on the statute book as soon as possible.

Lord Goldsmith: I too am glad that Clause 4 forms part of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, for engineering a situation in which it is possible to say that. However, it is important to bear in mind that we are talking about criminalising particular conduct. If we are talking about criminalising it, we have to think of the prospects of matters coming to court and the circumstances in which they may do so, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded us.
	If the noble and learned Lord is able to show that some changes to these categories can be made in a way which leaves the position workable, I shall be happy with that. Indeed I should be pleased because it is important that young people--we are talking here about boys and girls--receive protection. However, I wish to draw attention to one concern that Amendment No. 17--which was passed earlier--gives rise to. Clauses 3 and 4, as they stood together, were concerned with a person who, while in a position of trust, engaged in sexual intercourse or engaged in any other sexual activity. It seems to me that the consequence of adding Amendment No. 17--which amends Clause 3--which includes as a criminal offence,
	"preparing such a person to engage in sexual activity with him at a later stage",
	is the following. It adds a new dimension to the balance between criminalising conduct and the protection of the young.
	One of the points powerfully made earlier today concerned the position of teachers or others in important positions who may be subject to unfair and malicious allegations. It would be right to say that the amendment made will have that impact in relation to those who are in positions of trust; that is to say, they will be open and more vulnerable to an accusation that they have been preparing someone for the activity I mentioned.
	I say that at this stage because in considering the balance with regard to those categories of trust where children are most vulnerable and most in need of protection, and therefore where it is most justifiable to create a criminal offence, one must bear in mind that if one pushes the line too far, one may well put people who are doing a proper and good job at risk of allegations. Why are the allegations different? I refer to an allegation that someone has engaged in sexual activity--that is a definite and clear statement of conduct--and an allegation that someone has prepared someone for that at a later stage which must be much more open to interpretation of events. I respectfully suggest to the Committee that that must be carefully considered when deciding whether it is right to extend the categories in the ways proposed. As to the details, given that this is a general discussion on the clause rather than on the detailed amendments, I say nothing.

Baroness Young: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlisle for giving us the opportunity to consider these issues on a clause stand part debate. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the dangers of single issue amendments. We would not be talking about abuse of trust if we did not have a Bill which lowers the age of consent to 16. This does not worry only myself. I believe that I am right in saying that the first person to raise the matter of abuse of trust was the Labour Member, Mr Joseph Ashton, who tabled an amendment on that issue. He was right to do so. I am glad that the Government have included provisions in the Bill on that matter. Our concern with regard to the amendments which we have not been able to debate tonight is that we do not feel that those provisions go far enough.
	I should be concerned if the Committee thought that in tabling the amendments we had sat in a small room thinking up things to do. In fact all the amendments, almost without exception, arise from people who have thought about the issue at great length and in great detail. The amendments which we have been unable to move--Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, 30, 31, 34 to 36 and 44--arise from the report of Sir Ronald Waterhouse, a highly respected judge who had studied the issue.
	Leaving aside the amendment regarding education, Amendment No. 24 was grouped with Amendments Nos. 25, 32 and 38. Those amendments arise from the Government's own report, Setting the Boundaries. If noble Lords look at Setting the Boundaries they will discover that the amendments to which I have referred pick up recommendation 32, which extends the provisions on the abuse of trust to ancillary staff in residential homes to cover all social care workers.
	Finally, Amendment No. 24 covers recommen-dations 35 to 39, 41 and 42 in the review. I have read most of the review. Clearly, having considered the matter in considerable detail and at considerable length, members made recommendations. If we fail to do anything about any of those recommendations, we can do as the noble and learned Lord suggested earlier. I understand that all these matters will be considered. By next March they will be looked at. Two or three months later we may get something. And--who knows?--after the next election in the next Session of Parliament we might have legislation. In the meantime, those children who are affected by the Bill will not have the care that they should have. I believe that it is a matter of conscience that we do something about it. If the amendments are incorrectly drafted, or do not meet the case, I and my colleagues would gladly accept any provision that the Government may bring forward. But before we reach the next stage of the Bill, I hope that they will look seriously at these amendments because they meet points which have been raised.

Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she agree that the abuses described in the Waterhouse report took place when the age of consent was much higher? What did that fact do to help the people who were subject to them?

Baroness Young: My Lords, I believe that Sir Ronald Waterhouse said that were the age of consent to be lower, then the abuse would have been worse still. I think that society has a tremendous responsibility for what emerges from Waterhouse. It is not a point-scoring issue. I think that I am right in saying that there were children who, if the age of consent, were lowered, would have suffered. We should look at his recommendations and those in the Government's own White Paper. That is the point I make. Outsiders have considered the issue. We have simply picked up their amendments.

Baroness Blatch: I support all that my noble friends have said. The Government bear some responsibility for having voted against a fifth condition. They have set their face against any extension of the conditions in the clause. That is unfortunate.
	Apart from the example referred to by the right reverend Prelate regarding abuse of those people in the church, the 20,000 mentors established by the Learning and Skills Act will be in positions of trust, very directly, in one-to-one relationships with some of the more vulnerable people in our schools. Those vulnerable people will be befriended and advised, often in a physically isolated place where they can talk and discuss problems openly. My noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow explained how manipulative people operate, befriending young people and generously buying their favour to the point at which consent is almost assumed rather than asked for. We are talking about young people who are hungry for someone to take notice of them and to give them attention, love and affection and who find themselves in a situation that makes them very vulnerable to such people.
	The Attorney-General and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, have referred a number of times to the Government having a view on the issues. I thought that we were having free votes on everything. I did not think that the Government had a view. The Bill was not a manifesto pledge and every Member of this House and another place, including the Prime Minister, as I understand it, can take a view on the issues. It is deeply worrying that the Government appear to have decided that they do not want any extension to the conditions in the Bill. I have mentioned mentors and the Church and others have mentioned familial relationships. We know of instances of young people, particularly very small children, being abused in the home. Even children between 16 and 18 are not immune to that kind of relationship. However, they will be left outside the protection of Clause 4.
	If a young person is taken advantage of by a personal adviser, someone from social services, a guardian, a mentor, a member of a youth organisation or someone from within a church, there will be no offence of abuse of trust, unless the relationship is directly professional. Even in education, full-time teachers are included, but why not part-time teachers? How much less is the abuse if it is perpetrated by a part-time teacher rather than by a full-time one?
	It would be helpful if the Minister would give some defence of the Government's reasons for not being prepared to include such inoffensive amendments. The Government may have problems with some of the categories, but others are so glaringly missing from the four conditions set out in the clause that passing the Bill as it stands would mean knowingly leaving some young people without protection in a high-risk situation.
	The Minister will no doubt remind us again of the review committee's recommendations and the consultation that will be completed in the spring. However, unless a Bill is announced in the coming gracious Speech, we have to be pessimistic about the chances of there being one in the next Session. If there is not, we shall have to wait for the new Parliament after the general election. That will bring further unacceptable delays. Nothing in the amendments would have precluded further strengthening and additions that the Government might have thought up after the consultation. I am deeply depressed that the Government have unequivocally set their face against any extension of the categories of people in a position of trust who will be included in the Bill.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may disabuse the Committee of any false apprehension. It is utterly incorrect to say that very small children in a home lack the protection of the criminal law. Nothing could be further from the truth and I regard it as not responsible to make that suggestion.
	This is a free vote and we all vote according to our conscience. I am entitled to my view as much as any other Member of the Committee. My view has been made perfectly plain. On the previous occasion when we debated this matter, I said that Mr Hague and Mr Portillo, in an act of rare moral and political courage, supported that. I know that Mr Blair does, and I believe that Mr Charles Kennedy does also.
	In the meantime, it was said that those young people are left without protection. I repeat what I said on Second Reading when the Bill was thrown out: if the whole Bill is thrown out, those young people will remain without protection. I said that; it is shown in Hansard. No one was sufficiently persuaded by my argument to vote accordingly.
	It is said that this protection was brought about and made necessary only by the introduction of this Bill. I disagree profoundly. I believe, and I hope that Members of the Committee will agree with me, that young girls also require protection. Without this protection of trust legislation which we have put before this Parliament, there would have been no protection for young girls over the age of 16 in care homes, in places of custodial detention or in any other circumstances which are set out. Those are the unfortunate facts to which I am afraid I must refer.

Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may also make it clear that we are not opposing Clause 4 as it stands. We are saying that we wish to add to, improve and strengthen it. We are certainly not arguing against anything that is in Clause 4. The protection for girls was brought in by the amendments which we moved earlier in the day and which were voted in by this Committee.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the assertion that has been made that the protection of girls was made necessary by the introduction of this Bill with equalisation of consent is simply factually and historically wrong. The noble Baroness says that that is not true. I find that offensive. If she has a point to make, I shall sit down. However, it is true.

Baroness Blatch: I do have a point to make. The effect of passing the Bill unamended was to lower the age of buggery against girls for the first time to the age of 16. That meant that they went unprotected and the amendments moved today have remedied that.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Was it not also the fact that girls of 16, whether in custodial institutions, in schools or in positions of trust, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, were wholly without the protection of the criminal law? I believe that that is true. I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said bears a good deal of thought.
	The fact is--I have mentioned this on earlier occasions; therefore, the noble Lord will forgive me if I am brief--that until this law is passed, young girls of 16 have very little protection. I agree that older people prey on them. I have mentioned previously custodial circumstances, positions of trust, and the wealthy man with lots of money, well able to gull a young girl of 16 in one week. I have not heard much about the protection of young girls in those circumstances except from the noble Lord. I believe that the logic of his position--

Lord Waddington: I believe that the noble and learned Lord misunderstood what I said. I said that this Bill was dressed up as one which gave new freedom to young boys when in fact it was a Bill which licensed older men to commit buggery on young boys. That is what I said.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Is there to be no protection for girls of 16, preyed upon by older men for heterosexual sexual intercourse?

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: Are we not in danger of losing the focus on Clause 4 in the discussion which has just taken flight? Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether we can return to the particular points on Clause 4 on which, at this time of night, I believe we should be working.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes. However, when I do not deal with the various points, many of which I readily agree are not relevant to Clause 4, the Government are then accused of not taking them seriously. Therefore, I am trying to draw a middle path. However, I repeat that at present there is no protection whatever in our law for girls of 16 who are in positions of trust.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: Perhaps the Minister will agree that I was trying to assist him.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course, and that assistance is unalloyed and pure, not my universal experience of some assistance that is offered.
	The consequence of some of the amendments will be an infringement of the freedom of the press. Some Members of the Committee will say that that is justified. I am simply reminding the Committee that that is what it means. Article 10 does exist. We claim to live in a free society. Without a free press, we cannot have a free society. If Members of the Committee want to infringe the freedom of the press, all well and good. I am simply reminding the Committee that that is the consequence of some of these amendments.
	I turn now to the contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, and the right reverend Prelate, because they overlap in some ways. Amendment No. 24 deals with familial relationships. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is quite right to say that if one looks at what the Home Office has said, there is a good deal there for us all to reflect on.
	Recommendation 35 states:
	"There should be an offence of familial sexual abuse to reflect the looser structure of modern families ... For the purposes of familial sexual abuse, the prohibition on sexual relations should apply until the child is 18. The offence of familial sexual abuse should apply to the sexual penetration of a child of all relations, including the existing offence of incest, with the addition of uncles and aunts related by blood. Adoptive parents should be treated on the same basis as natural parents. Sexual relations between adoptive siblings should be prohibited until the age of 18".
	Those are very wide and they go further but, as the right reverend Prelate said, it is late. I am simply drawing the attention of the Committee to that document.
	It is not a case that this will be put off. It is a case that we need consultation on the matter. It is a very thoughtful document indeed, I suggest, and it is well worth looking at.
	There was then the question of religion. I believe that that was referred to by the right reverend Prelate and, certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, in Amendment No. 26. One must bear in mind, of course, that some areas of religion, like church schools or children's homes, will be covered by the new offence.
	Amendment No. 26, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, and also the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, states:
	"The fifth condition is that A looks after persons under 18 who are members of a church or religious organisation and B is a member of that church or religious organisation".
	There is opportunity there for two forms of sexual relationships: one is coercive and abuse of trust; and the other is perfectly acceptable and normal in society generally.
	At the moment, the amendment will not deal with the one mischief without encompassing the other activity. These amendments are not easy to draw up at all. I believe that the general cast of the Bill is right. There is no point in rehearsing the arguments, of course, on the first approach which the majority of the Committee supported.
	I believe that one must be extremely careful and look at some examples. I take the phrase "preying on younger people" or "using the opportunity of taking advantage of younger people". What about a 17 year-old girl who is an employee working for an employer who is 18½ or the 16 or 17 year-old girl who is working in a coffee bar and the manager happens to be 18½? One could say that that is abusive and he is in a position of authority. I rather doubt it in today's world, I really do, and perhaps even in the world of 30 years ago, for which I shall have to ask my noble friend Lord Bach for his comments.
	These are extremely difficult, subtle relationships. We can blunder in and achieve the wrong conclusion. I am grateful--he will know that I mean this sincerely--for the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that we should have our debate, about which everyone is deeply engaged, although people have different views. I shall not repeat what I said about social care workers and social services inspectors, if the noble Lord will forgive me, because I dealt with that a little earlier. I appreciate that he wanted to put the full spectrum.
	I believe that the suggestion was good and that it was helpful to the Committee. I have a feeling that in the end there will be a gulf between people's views. If possible, we must try to reconcile that gulf, but if people come to different conclusions the Committee must decide for itself or the House will decide on Report.

Baroness Blatch: Can the Minister comment on part-time as well as full-time teachers and on the 20,000 mentors who will be working one-to-one with young people in schools?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe I have dealt with the point about the 20,000 mentors by pointing specifically to the powers of the Secretary of State and I have dealt with the argument about part-timers. We believe that this series of conditions ought to relate to those who are in a position in which they can coerce children.

Clause 4 agreed to.
	Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Lord Brightman: moved Amendment No. 45:
	After Clause 6, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:TEXT OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS AMENDED BY THIS ACT
	(". Sections 12 and 13 of, and paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to, the Sexual Offences Act 1956, sections 1 and 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 and Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, as read by the application of the existing law and as amended by sections 1 and 2, and with the omission of repealed provisions, are set out in Schedule (Sexual Offences Acts 1956 and 1967, Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 and Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, as amended) to this Act.").

Lord Brightman: In moving Amendment No. 45 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 46. The Committee may be relieved to know that I do not intend to say a single word about sex and I shall be as brief as possible.
	I seek to introduce into this Bill a Keeling schedule covering Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. I shall say a few words about a Keeling schedule for the benefit of those Members of the Committee not familiar with the device. If a Bill intends to amend a section, including a subsection, of an existing Act of Parliament there are two ways to do so. The amendment can take the form of a patchwork amendment, adding a word here, substituting or deleting a word there, as in Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill.
	Alternatively, the amendment can take the form of deleting the whole section and substituting a new clause. The principal advantage of the patchwork type of amendment is that it spotlights the precise changes intended and also will often avoid amendments to amendments, which are a bugbear.
	The advantage of the wholesale type of amendment is that the amended section can be read as a whole when the Bill is passed and becomes an Act of Parliament. That advantage becomes overwhelming if the section being amended has already been amended by previous Acts of Parliament so that one has to keep four or five fingers in past volumes of statutes in order to read the amended section in its new form.
	I accept that a patchwork amendment is more convenient to the House than a wholesale amendment. On the other hand, a wholesale amendment of an already heavily amended section is almost always more convenient to judges, lawyers and other members of the public who are our customers. The customers can read the amended section in its current form without having to trudge through past legislation.
	We make Acts of Parliament for the public and not for ourselves. Fortunately, there is a halfway house. It is possible to have the best of both worlds--by amending a section in patchwork style and adding at the end of the Bill words to the effect, "Section 1 of the so-and-so Act, as previously amended and as further amended by this Act, is set out in the schedule to this Act".
	To illustrate the need for a Keeling schedule, perhaps I may tell the Committee the contortions through which a reader must go in order to read Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 if it is amended as proposed by this Bill. Section 1 of the 1967 Act has seven subsections. First, the reader must go to Schedule 11 of the Public Order Act 1994 to amend line 2 of subsection (1). Secondly, the reader must go to Section 145 of the same Act and also to Clause 2(3) of the Bill for the remainder of subsection (1).
	Thirdly, for subsection (3), the reader must go to paragraph 34(a) of Schedule 1 to the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 to amend lines 1, 2 and 8 of subsection (3). Fourthly, the reader must go to paragraph 34(b) of the same schedule to insert a new subsection numbered (3A). Fifthly, his researches will reveal that subsection (4) is unchanged. Sixthly, the reader must go to Section 146 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to discover that subsection (5) has been repealed.
	Seventhly, to ascertain subsection (6) the reader must go back to Section 145 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and then return to Clause 1(2) of the Bill and the final words of subsection (6). Eighthly, the reader heaves a sigh of relief on discovering that the final subsection of Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 is unchanged.
	To foist an Act of Parliament on the public in this form is simply not fair. It is not democratic. Of course, the answer may be given that the reader can spend £1,000 or so on Halsbury's Laws of England or a computer and that will, to a large extent, overcome his difficulties. But it is not an answer which appeals to me. The proper answer is to add to the Bill a Keeling schedule.
	A Keeling schedule, though not often now used, has a respectable ancestry. It first arose on 26th July 1938. Mr Keeling, the Member for Twickenham, asked the Prime Minister,
	"whether he has considered a memorandum on the evils of legislation by reference submitted to him by a number of Members; and whether he has any statement to make".--[Official Report, 26/7/38; col. 2919.]
	The Prime Minister, Mr Neville Chamberlain, said at col. 2920,
	"I have considered the memorandum with interest ... The suggestion made is, in effect, that a Bill amending or applying an existing enactment by reference should contain a Schedule setting out the enactment as it will read when amended by the Bill ... This method is not, I understand, put forward as a panacea to be used in all cases ... There are, however, undoubtedly some cases where the method suggested by the memorandum would be both practicable and advantageous; and I have instructed the Parliamentary Counsel to proceed experimentally on the lines suggested in suitable cases".
	Members of the Committee may be puzzled why the Prime Minister was considering the policy of drafting Acts of Parliament at a time when he was shuttling between London, Godesberg and Munich when his mind was mainly occupied with the rising power of Hitler's Germany. The answer is that under our quaint system of legislation the office of parliamentary counsel, who do the basic work, is responsible for policy to the Prime Minister and to no one else. Only the Prime Minister can give policy directions to the office of parliamentary counsel. The Committee may feel that it would be more appropriate if the office of parliamentary counsel were responsible to the Lord Chancellor, to the Attorney-General or perhaps to a joint committee of both Houses.
	How can matters of general drafting policy have been expected to engage the attention of Sir Winston Churchill in 1940 to 1945 or the attention of Mr Blair today? The effect of the Prime Minister's 1938 policy direction to the office of parliamentary counsel was substantial. Between 1939 and 1949, 23 public Bills had Keeling schedules. In more modern times, between 1966 and 1993, 24 public Bills had Keeling schedules. Since then, they have died out save for a single exception; the Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Act 1997.
	I ask myself whether parliamentary draftsmen are disenchanted with Keeling schedules and will no longer have anything to do with them. It would be quite inappropriate for me to seek to bring my amendment to a conclusion today. As a result of the amendments made to Clauses 1 and 2 it is already out of date. However, I would respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to consider inserting a Keeling schedule into the Bill. He might even find time to grant me the favour of an interview.
	Before I sit down, perhaps I may say that I owe a deep sense of gratitude to Mr Edward Ollard, then of the Public Bill Office, for drafting the Keeling schedule, which I could never have done accurately myself. I ought to thank his successor for his research at short notice into past uses of Keeling schedules. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: We should be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for an extremely helpful series of suggestions and an extremely interesting series of remarks. I have always been attracted to Keeling schedules, ever since I was introduced to them by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whose remarks on drafting as always deserve a great deal of attention.
	I have experienced two Keeling memoranda, if that is not an improper phrase--kind of sub-Keeling documents--drawn up by the Minister for the assistance of the House on the Child Support Acts 1995 and 1999. Both of those were extraordinarily helpful. I wish only that they could have been used in the full Keeling sense in the Bill.
	When one approaches legislation, especially in social security, one feels that one is being asked to undertake a crossword puzzle. To those such as myself who lack skills in crosswords, that can be extremely difficult. So I hope that the noble and learned Lord's remarks will receive very careful attention. In this particular case it is possible that the Minister might reply that if it were done now, it would only have to be done again in the very near future in the review of sexual offences. Were he to make that reply, I would, of course, listen to it with great seriousness. But the principle of what the noble and learned Lord has said remains sound and remains in need of urgent attention from parliamentary counsel and all those to whom they may on occasion answer.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. When I was elected to the House of Commons, after being a member of a local authority, I can remember how bemused I was by parliamentary procedure and parliamentary Bills and amendments. It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, is absolutely right that legislation is for the people. If legislation is for the people, then the people ought to be able to read the legislation in one go, not in several goes, as he outlined. Therefore, I hope that my noble and learned friend will give very serious consideration to what has been said. I shall be interested to hear his reply.

Baroness Blatch: I rise briefly to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Having spent a good deal of the past three years doing my own research, I would welcome this provision in many other Acts of Parliament. I find the cross-referencing of one piece of legislation with another an absolute minefield. As well as people outside, some of us here would benefit greatly from the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and I hope that the advice is followed.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I always believe everything that your Lordships tell me! I am thinking of having a T-shirt printed: "I have always been attracted to Keeling schedules--Earl Russell". I think some eyebrows shot up a little around the House when he said that.
	As always, of course, what the noble and learned Lord has said commands enormous attention in your Lordships' House. It may be--I hope he will not think that I am being presumptuous--that his suggestion would fall more usefully to be considered when the outcome of the comprehensive review of the sexual legislation ought to bring about a major rewriting of the whole law on sexual offences.
	He asked, with his usual charm and courtesy, whether or not we might have a meeting. I would certainly welcome that. Perhaps his suggestion, which seems to all of us to be of great value, may well be deployed on a subsequent occasion because, of course, this Bill deals with only a limited number of sexual offences. However, I am most obliged not only for his suggestions but for the most helpful tone in which he deployed his submissions.

Lord Brightman: I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord, the Attorney-General, said. It occurred to me that this could be dealt with by means of a consolidation Bill. However, that means that there would have to be a First Reading and a Second Reading here, followed by a joint consolidation committee of the two Houses, which would take quite a long time. Your Lordships may feel that, if it can be done, it would be quicker to have a Keeling schedule in this Bill rather than wait for a consolidation. I am very grateful to those of your Lordships who have spoken but, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
	House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.